Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Royal Sheffield Infirmary and Hospital Bill [Lords].
West Surrey Water Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Welsh Church (Amendment) Bill [Lords].

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 18th day of March last, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, namely:

Welsh Church (Amendment) Bill [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Radcliffe Farnworth and District Gas Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Bournemouth Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOUSING.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the various proposals contained in the resolution passed at the housing conference of Members of Parliament and housing local authorities held in Glasgow on 25th March; and whether he has any statement to make thereon, especially in relation to a grant towards reconditioning of houses?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I have considered the resolution, but I am not in a position to add anything to the statements made during the Debate on 29th March. I shall be glad to consider any representations on the subjects covered by the resolution which local authorities may make during the forthcoming negotiations with regard to the revision of housing subsidies.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many local authorities are urging Members of Parliament to support the recommendations, and has the right hon. Gentleman nothing to say at the moment with regard to the question, to which I draw attention, of the reconditioning of houses having regard to the great scarcity of houses?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid I cannot add anything to my answer.

DISTRICT COUNCILLORS (PAYMENT OF EXPENSES).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in relation to the memorial presented to him by the clerk to the conference held in Glasgow on 9th March, advocating the payment of expenses to members of district councils in Scotland?

Mr. Elliot: I shall carefully consider the memorial which was forwarded to me on 28th March. Legislation would be required before effect could be given to the resolution contained in the memorial, and I am not in a position meanwhile to make any statement on the subject.

Mr. Mathers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the voluntary work which is put in by these councillors deserves consideration to the extent at least of relieving them of the out-of-pocket outlays and losses that they may incur?

Mr. Elliot: I will take all those matters into consideration.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Has the right hon. Gentleman in mind the framing of a comprehensive measure that would include not only district councillors but town councillors?

EMPIRE EXHIBITION (HOUSE-LETTING).

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any steps have been taken to prevent overcrowding and profiteering rents in Glasgow during the period of the Empire Exhibition?

Mr. Elliot: I have no power to take any action such as the hon. Member has in mind. I hope, however, that the good sense of all concerned will preclude the possibility of the condtiions which he apprehends.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that already a considerable amount of profiteering is taking place in the vicinity of the Exhibition with regard to house letting; and can he not issue a departmental warning against overcrowding?

Mr. Elliot: I hope that the hon. Member, like myself, will use his influence to prevent anything of the kind from taking place.

SELF-GOVERNMENT.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, as a result of the Gilmour Report, legislation is contemplated soon establishing a form of self-government for Scotland?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. I do not think this question is raised by the Gilmour Report.

Mr. Davidson: Is any legislation in regard to Scottish business contemplated as a result of the Committee's deliberations?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Has my right hon. Friend thought of the possibility of re-establishing the government of England by the English?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SAFETY IN MINES (COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will consult the chairman of the Royal Commission on Safety in Mines to ascertain the earliest date on which he expects to be in a position to submit the report of the Commission?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): The chairman of the Royal Commission on Safety in Coal Mines informs me that while every effort is being made to complete the Commission's work as early as possible, it is impossible at the present moment to fix a date for the presentation of the report. The House will appreciate that the Commission's task is a very big one, and that it has to deliberate on many matters of great difficulty and importance.

Mr. Macdonald: Has the Minister any hope that we shall have the report before the summer Recess so that we can study it during the Recess?

Captain Crookshank: I am afraid I cannot go any further than the answer I have given.

PRICES, WAGES AND ORGANISATION.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to allegations by Sir P. Malcolm Stewart that British coalowners have unjustifiably forced up the price of coal, obstructed the reorganisation of the industry and provided misleading statements of the quarterly ascertainments of profits on which miners' wages are based; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matters referred to in those allegations, including the manner in which the powers now vested in the price-fixing control boards are now being used?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir, but I do not propose to cause special inquiry to be made into these allegations. The House will recall that these matters have been fully debated during the passage of the Coal Bill, notably on 7th February.

Mr. George Griffiths: Has the Secretary for Mines seen the reply from the committee that this man has missed his mark altogether?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, and I was interested to see that the reply was a joint one from the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation.

SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on what grounds representation by Africans on the standing joint advisory conference between the South African Union Government and the High Commission Territories has been denied?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave on this point on 29th March. It seems best that the territories should be represented by the three Resident Commissioners, who are, of course, well qualified to look after the interests of the natives of the territories on the conference.

Mr. Creech Jones: The question I put was as to the grounds on which a decision was taken. I want to know what are the reasons which actuated the Minister in reaching this decision?

Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Member will study the answer which I gave on 29th March he will find the grounds stated there.

Mr. Creech Jones: I have studied the reply, and I am yet at a loss to know what the Minister's grounds were. May I ask whether these people who are vitally concerned with this decision and with the development of the economic resources of their Territories have not a right to be represented on such a conference?

Mr. MacDonald: The natives are certainly vitally concerned, but I think that their interests can well be looked after by the Resident Commissioners. The hon. Member will appreciate that if the principle of native representation were accepted, it would be impossible to appoint just one native representative of the three Territories. We should have to have at least one native representative for each of the Territories. The question of the representation of European interests would then arise, and that would mean

two or three additional people being appointed to the conference. Then the representation of European interests outside the Territories would arise, for the conference has to consider matters of economic concern not only to the Territories but to the Union, and it would quickly become much larger than we think desirable in all the circumstances.

Mr. Paling: Is it not rather curious that the Africans themselves, whose country it is and whose welfare is probably to be changed, are not to be allowed even a representative and are not to have a say in a business which so vitally affects them?

Mr. MacDonald: Their interests have been watched over very carefully by the Resident Commissioners in the past, and they will continue to watch them in the future.

Mr. Attlee: Would it not be possible to appoint some prominent African—whether for the Territories or not would not matter—to represent the natives instead of merely appointing people who think they know what is best for them?

Mr. MacDonald: It would be impossible to appoint one individual for all the Territories. I cannot repeat the answer I have just given; I can only say in answer to the right hon. Gentleman that these are the considerations that we have in mind.

Mr. Mander: Would it be in order for the advisory conference, if it thought fit, to co-opt one or more natives to serve?

Mr. MacDonald: If the conference wanted to make that or any other suggestion I would consider it very carefully.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will assure the House that the transfer of the South African Protectorates will not take place not only until the wishes of the natives of the Territories have been carefully considered, but also until their acquiescence has been obtained?

Mr. MacDonald: The pledges which have been given by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom on this subject are fully set out in the Command Paper Cmd. 4948, and there is no question of varying them.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's reply last week that the views of the natives would be considered, does that imply that the consent of the natives has to be obtained before transfer is effected?

Mr. MacDonald: I think that the position is perfectly secure, because under our pledges the last word rests with Parliament here, and it will be for Parliament to make up its mind as to what constitutes circumstances regarding native opinion which might or might not justify the transfer of territory.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has made any observations to the Government of the Union of South Africa as to the bearing of the Statute of Westminster on the provisions of the Schedule of the South Africa Act, 1909, in respect to the proposed terms on which the transfer of the government of the High Commission Territories would take place and the conditions under which the Territories would be governed?

Mr. MacDonald: This point was referred to in the memorandum handed to General Smuts in 1933 which forms the appendix to the Command Paper Cmd. 4948, and it has been kept in mind in the recent discussions with General Hertzog.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

INDUSTRIES, LANCASHIRE (STATISTICS).

Mr. Parkinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many works in the coal, steel, engineering, and cotton industries in Lancashire have been closed down since 1931, giving the number of people thrown out of employment, also the number of new works in the same industries which have been completed during the same period, and the number of people employed on the new works?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): As the answer is long and contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
Between 1st January, 1931, and 31st December, 1937, 65 coal pits in Lancashire employing 12,358 wage-earners were closed and not reopened. In the

same period 14 pits employing 952 wage-earners were opened. These particulars relate to pits employing 10 or more wage-earners. As regards the remainder of the information desired, the only particulars available are those collected since 1932 in connection with the annual Surveys of Industrial Development, which relate solely to factories where 25 or more people are or have been employed.
The following table shows the number of such factories engaged in the industries specified which were reported as opened in Lancashire during the period 1932 to 1937, the employment provided therein, and the number of factories reported as closed during the same period. The figures of openings and closures take no account of cases in which factories were closed down on transfer of the work to newly opened factories in other parts of Lancashire. In compiling the figures of employment provided, account has been taken, so far as practicable, of the employment figures reported as at 31st December of the year following that in which each factory was established. Particulars of employment are not reported in respect of any subsequent years. It is not practicable to ascertain with any degree of precision employment figures for factories closed which are comparable with the employment figures for new factories. In many cases the closing down of a factory is the final stage of a process extending over several months or years, and any employment figure relating to the period immediately before closing might be misleading.


—
Factories opened,
Employment provided.
Factories closed.


Iron and steel
18
1,230
8


Engineering
27
4,165
25


Cotton (spinning and weaving)
132
13,946
346

TURKEY (SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any British firms tendered for the 13 merchant ships for the Turkish Government; and why the contract was given to a German and not to a British firm?

Mr. Stanley: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the contracts which are reported to have been concluded in the


spring of last year. I understand that the United Kingdom firms which were in negotiation for the orders were unable to accept them on the terms of payment proposed at that time by the Turkish Government. I regret that there was no action which the Government could have taken to secure that these orders should have been placed in British rather than in foreign shipyards.

RUSSIA.

Sir William Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that apart from re-exports, many of which are of foreign origin, the Soviet Government purchased only approximately £3,000,000 worth of goods and commodities produced in Great Britain during the past year, as compared with imports from Russia into Great Britain of over £29,000,000; and whether in these circumstances steps will at once be taken to negotiate a permanent treaty for trade with Russia on a reciprocal basis in which provision can also be made in regard to the long-standing claims of British nationals?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot at present add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Hepworth) on 8th February.

Sir W. Davison: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the very unsatisfactory position that the Soviet Government are purchasing only about one-tenth of the goods that we purchase from them? Is it not high time that something was done in the way of a permanent agreement, especially having regard to the pledges which were made to British creditors that their claims would be dealt with under such a permanent agreement?

Mr. Stanley: The question of creditors is rather remote from this question, but I certainly do not regard the figures stated in the question as at all satisfactory. I am receiving a deputation shortly, but, as the House will realise, it is not just a question of doing something; it is a question of doing something which is effective and helpful.

Mr. G. Strauss: Does not a somewhat similar adverse figure apply between this country and the United States of America, and is not the Soviet Government faithfully carrying out the bargain?

Mr. Stanley: The Soviet Government are carrying out the letter of the bargain. They are carrying it out by means almost entirely of re-exports, which is the manner least helpful to the workpeople of this country. When the hon. Gentleman compares it with the United States of America I would remind him that in any comparison of that kind we must take into account the trade of the United States with our Colonial Empire as well as with this country.

Mr. Thorne: Are not the adverse balances with some other countries greater than with the Soviet Government?

GAS PRICES.

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has decided to introduce legislation to implement the findings of the Joint Committee on Gas Prices; and, if so, when such legislation is likely to be introduced into the House?

Mr. Stanley: I have now considered the observations of the local authorities and the gas industry on this report, and it is clear that legislation based on it would be controversial. The matter is still under consideration, but I can hold out no hope that time will be found for such legislation in the near future.

Mr. Green: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of gas to consumers in London has been raised twice since this committee sat, whereas electricity companies have in the main reduced their charges in the same period?

Mr. Stanley: My answer was directed to the possibility of introducing legislation, and in view of the congested state of the programme, and the fact that in almost every week, days have to be found for matters other than legislation, I cannot make any promise about legislation.

COTTON PIECE GOODS (EXPORTS).

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value and volume of cotton piece goods exported from this country in the 12 months ended 31st December, 1913, and in the 12 months ended 31st December, 1937; and the same particulars with respect to India alone?

Mr. Stanley: Exports of cotton piece goods from the United Kingdom amounted to 7,075,000,000 linear yards, valued at


£97,776,000, in 1913 and to 2,024,000,000 linear yards, valued at £44,783,000, in 1937. The corresponding exports to British India amounted to 3,057,000,000 linear yards, valued at £34,978,000, in 1913 and to 326,000,000 linear yards, valued at £5,709,000, in 1937.

Mr. Tomlinson: Do not the figures as to India reveal the urgent necessity for a new trade agreement with India, and how soon can we anticipate such an agreement being reached?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member knows that we are in the middle of very difficult negotiations at the present moment, in which the interests of the cotton industry are not being lost sight of, but I can make no statement as to when any agreement can be reached.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lancashire cotton textile industry is suffering the worst depression in the whole of its long history?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir, and I am also aware that it is the tariff policy of the Government which alone gives any hope of getting any concessions.

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (TRADE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. Burke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement on the progress of the Anglo-American trade negotiations; whether the public hearings in the United States of America on the memoranda submitted by industries has begun; and when the negotiations are likely to end?

Mr. Stanley: Discussions have been proceeding continuously since the end of February in Washington. The public hearings to which the hon. Member refers opened on 14th March, and I believe they have now been concluded. I cannot say when the negotiations are likely to end.

Mr. Burke: Is it proposed to call for memoranda from the industries in this country and publish them?

Mr. Stanley: That question has been asked on numerous occasions in the last three months, and I would refer the hon. Member to the previous answers which I have given.

AEROPLANES (EXPORT).

Mr. Watkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number and value of British manufactured fighting aeroplanes that were exported in 1937 and the countries to which they were exported?

Mr. Stanley: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the number and value of aeroplanes of United Kingdom manufacture exported to individual countries during 1937. I am unable, from the particulars compiled for the purpose of the trade returns, to furnish the desired information in respect of fighting aeroplanes, as such.

Mr. Watkins: Is it not surprising that the Government have allowed these aeroplanes to go abroad when we are told day by day that they are wanted for our own defence?

Mr. Stanley: There are aeroplanes and aeroplanes.

Mr. Lawson: If this export has not been stopped, may I ask what is the good of negotiating with the engineers?

Mr. Stanley: A number of these are civil aeroplanes which have no relation whatsoever to the armament programme. All the others are the subject of export licences granted by my Department after consultation with the Service Department concerned, who are satisfied that service interests are not interfered with.

Mr. Attlee: If permits are necessary how is it that the right hon. Gentleman cannot state the number of fighting aeroplanes as compared with civil aeroplanes?

Mr. Stanley: I was asked also their value and I have given the whole list, compiled from Customs' returns, but the Customs' returns do not differentiate between fighting and other types of aircraft.

Mr. Kelly: In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there are aeroplanes and aeroplanes, will he give us the number of fighting aeroplanes—bombers, and so forth—which are being exported from this country?

Mr. Stanley: I have given all the information I have.

Following are the particular:


Table showing the number and value of complete aeroplanes of United Kingdom manufacture exported from this country during 1937, distinguishing the countries to which consigned.


Countries to which consigned.
Complete Aeroplanes.



Number.
£


Irish Free State
4
20,309


Channel Islands
—
—


Union of South Africa (excluding south-West Africa Territory)
60
65,490


Southern Rhodesia
4
9,258


Kenya
7
17,862


Anglo-Egyptian Sudan
1966
1,744


British India and Burma
19
44,304


Straits Settlements and Dependencies (including Labuan).
6
11,074


Federated Malay States
3
2,731


Hong Kong
12
75,103


Anstralia
73
367,440


Territory of Papua (including the Mandated Territory of New Guinea)
1
525


New Zealand
32
33,929


Canada
14
44,720



Bermuda
—
—


Other British Countries
4
7,853


Finland
8
84,909


Latvia
15
106,239


Lithuania
5
24,403


Sweden
10
47,025


Denmark (including Farce Island)
3
6,100


Poland (including Danzig)
2
4,229


Germany
1
1,000


Netherlands
6
3,259


Belgium
25
148,355


France
31
86,299


Switzerland
6
5,979


Portugal
10
47,074


Austria
5
23,520


Czechoslovakia
1
7,232


Yugoslavia
14
101,740


Greece
7
25,290


Rumania
5
16,479


Turkey
11
99,476


Egypt
20
56,236


Iraq
27
105,299


Iran
—
—


Afghanistan
8
53,100


Siam
—
—


China (exclusive of Hong Kong, Macao, Manchuria and leased territories)
14
97,732


Japan (including Formosa)
1
1,484


Brazil
16
42,515


Uruguay
11
11,125


Other foreign countries
5
4,638


Total
507
1,913,099

FOREIGN TRADE AGREEMENTS.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations or discussions have taken place during the last

12 months between His Majesty's Government and any of the foreign Governments with which trade agreements have been entered into with a view to the termination of the same?

Mr. Stanley: The only discussions during the past 12 months regarding the revision or termination of trade agreements with foreign countries entered into since the introduction of our general tariff were those relating to the commercial agreement of November, 1936, with Italy. That agreement was terminated on 28th March, 1938, and replaced as from that date by a new agreement.

Mr. Day: Have all the other Governments with whom trade agreements were completed fulfilled their obligations?

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

CARPETS (EXPORTS AND IMPORTS).

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade the comparative figures of the export of British carpets to the United States of America for representative years before and after the War?

Mr. Stanley: The average annual exports of carpets, carpeting and rugs of wool of United Kingdom manufacture consigned to the United States amounted to 135,00o square yards, valued at £57,0oo during the three years 1911 to 1913, and to 49,000 square yards, valued at £24,000 during the three years 1935 to 1937.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade the imports of Indian carpets into this country in 1930 and 1937, respectively; and whether, in view of the large increase in these imports, proposals for the application of a quota will be placed before those who are negotiating a trade agreement with India?

Mr. Stanley: Imports of carpets, etc., from India amounted to 668,377 square yards valued at £394,347 in 1930 and to 1,803,156 square yards valued at £784,954 in 1937. These facts will not be lost sight of in connection with the negotiations for a new trade agreement with India.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact


that British carpets exported to India pay an import duty of 25 per cent., while carpets manufactured in India enter this country free of duty; and whether these facts are being kept prominently before those who are negotiating a trade agreement with India?

Mr. Stanley: The answer is in the affirmative.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is it not a fact that this prohibitive duty on Kidderminster carpets is a result of the Government of India Act, of which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) was so eloquent a supporter?

Mr. Stanley: I think this duty was imposed some time before the Government of India Act, but I am not quite certain.

NIGERIA (ANIMAL TRAPS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present position with regard to the export of animal traps without teeth to Nigeria; whether he is aware that a prohibitive tariff has been imposed causing much dislocation of trade and cancellation of orders in Wednesfield, the centre of the industry; and whether, in view of the fact that such traps are exported to all other parts of West Africa, British, French, and mandated territory, he will consider what steps can be taken to secure more consistent action?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The import duty in Nigeria on all animal traps is at present 1s. 3d. each. I have received representations to the effect that it is unduly high, and I am in communication with the Governor on the subject. He is, I know, giving the matter his sympathetic consideration. The recent change in duties which has given rise to these representations was due to the apprehension that the traps were being used in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering to animals.

Mr. Mender: In view of the fact that the use of these traps is freely permitted in this country and most other places, will the Colonial Secretary say in what way the natives of Nigeria are expected to exterminate vermin?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The point is that the trap is used in and around the house

where there are people about, for the purpose of catching rats; but if such traps were put out broadcast in the jungle to catch wild animals, they might cause quite unnecessary suffering to wild animals.

Mr. Mander: While that is perfectly true, is not this a general question, and why is Nigeria selected from the rest of the world?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Because representations have been made with regard to Nigeria.

Mr. Mander: Will the Colonial Secretary be good enough to consider representations on this matter from elsewhere?

Mr. Thorne: Are there not other traps besides rat traps?

MEXICO.

Mr. R. Gibson (for Mr. Sorensen): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement respecting the effect of recent events in Mexico on British trade with that country; and what representations he has received from British companies with interests in Mexico?

Mr. Stanley: I am afraid it is not possible to make any statement about the probable effects of recent events in Mexico on Anglo-Mexican trade. Representations have been received by the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade from companies concerned with oil, but I have not received any representations with regard to other trade with Mexico.

Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the United States Government in connection with this matter?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs answered a number of questions on that subject the other day. Questions of that character should be addressed to the Foreign Office.

MERCURY (IMPORTS).

Mr. R. Gibson (for Mr. Sorensen): asked the President of the Board of Trade the volume, value, and countries of origin of our imports of mercury during each of the past three years?

Mr. Stanley: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon.

Table showing the total quantity and declared value of the imports of mercury into the United Kingdom during the last three years, distinguishing the principal countries from which consigned.


Country from which consigned.
Quantity.
Declared Value.




1935.
1936.
1937.
1935.
1936.
1937.




lbs.
lbs.
lbs.
£
£
£


British Countries
…
—
7,500
—
—
1,264
—


Spain
…
1,419,328

1,404,466
2,599,156
209,164
222,009
418,670


Italy
…
65,379
1,520
997,275
9,792
280
169,637


Mexico
…
412,960
271,948
158,704
60,376
43,604
28,520


Other Foreign Countries
…
19,866
22,096
37,086
2,779
3,486
6,200


Total Imports
…
1,917,533
1,707,530
3,792,221
282,111
270,643
623,027

NOTE: The 1937 figures are provisional.

WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT).

Mr. R. Gibson (for Mr. Sorensen): asked the President of the Board of Trade the volume and value of exports of military, naval, and aerial equipment during each of the last three years to Germany, Italy, and Japan, respectively?

Mr. Stanley: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
During the years 1935, 1936 and 1937, the total declared value of the exports of arms, ammunition and military and naval stores of United Kingdom manufacture consigned to Germany was £451, £2,244 and £709, respectively; to Italy £4,838, £20 and £595, respectively; and to Japan £45,187, £25,729 and £58,728, respectively. Particulars of the aggregate quantity of these goods exported are not available.

WAR RISKS INSURANCE.

Sir W. Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the large amount of leasehold property in the country in respect of which the lessees are under covenant to replace and make good all damage done to the same; and whether, having regard to the fact that such lessees are no longer able to insure their liability in this respect with regard to air-raid damage, he will introduce legislation absolving lessees from

Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer

liability in respect of damage to property caused in this way?

Mr. Stanley: As I indicated in the answer I gave on 1st February to the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor), this matter is receiving consideration, but I am not at present able to make any further statement.

Sir W. Davison: Does my right hon. Friend realise the great anxiety which is felt by lessees who are under special covenants to rebuild their premises, and does he not think that some promise should be made by the Government, pending their definite statement, that they will see that they are not liable to rebuild premises which are destroyed by hostile aircraft?

Mr. Stanley: I quite realise the urgency of this matter, and I am sure that the hon. Member realises also the difficulties. It is a matter which requires very careful consideration, and calls for a good deal of consultation with expert advice outside, and, as I say, it is under the active consideration of the Government.

Sir W. Davison: Thank you.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance and the difficulty involved in the organisation of air-raid precautions throughout the country, he will arrange for the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to devote his whole time to this work?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but, as at present advised, I do not think that an alteration of the kind suggested is required.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that there is a good deal of public uneasiness with regard to the present position of air-raid precautions, and that such an arrangement might do much to reassure the people?

The Prime Minister: I do not think there is any cause for public uneasiness. As I have said, I do not think that any alteration of the kind suggested is called for.

Dr. Haden Guest: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is difficult for local authorities to get on with their air-raid precautions because of the lack of definite direction, and that if the suggestion of my hon. Friend is not to be carried out it would be well to increase considerably the staff of the Air-Raid Precautions Department and of those who, as inspectors, come into contact with local authorities throughout the country?

The Prime Minister: That question should be addressed to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does not the experience in Spain indicate that a smaller number of aircraft than we expect would bring about spontaneous evacuation?

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what encouragement is given to builders and householders to construct air-raid shelters; whether the procedure for the approval of deposited plans by local authorities can be expedited; and whether such shelters are to be derated?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): In a recent circular, my right hon. Friend pointed out that it is the duty of the local authorities to give advice and instruction to the public, and that it must be assumed that householders, in the light of this advice, will do what they can to increase the measure of protection afforded by their own homes. I am not aware that delays are occurring in the approval of plans by local authorities, but if the hon. Member has any cases in mind perhaps he will let me have particulars. As regards the last part of the question, I

would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne, Central (Mr. Denville) on 31st March

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RECRUITING.

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider restoring the full-dress uniform to the six senior line regiments which have battalions serving at home, with a view to stimulating recruitment?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I am not at present persuaded that it would be fair to discriminate in this way.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in pre-War days it was estimated that more than 60 per cent. of the recruits who joined the forces were attracted by the smart uniforms, and in view of the great expenditure which we are incurring upon the armaments programme, does he not think it would be well worth while to spend a few thousand pounds in attracting recruits to the colours?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I understand my hon. Friend's point of view, but I am not entirely guided by pre-War psychology, and I did feel that if any money could be spared from the Exchequer I should prefer to spend it on amenities for the soldiers rather than on dress. I do not in the least exclude the advisability of proceeding in as many directions as possible, but I have not any more money to spend on this at the moment.

Sir A. Knox: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that at the present day 50 per cent. of the troops serving in the Army provide the blue walking-out dress out of their own pockets, and would it not be providing them with an amenity to pay for that dress?

OFFICERS.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War particulars of the improvements he proposes to introduce for the purpose of meeting the shortage of officers in the Regular Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made in my Estimates speech on 10th March?

Mr. Day: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making the pay and allowances for officers more attractive?

CADET CORPS (USE OF SCHOOLS).

Mr. Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the continued refusal of the London County Council to allow cadet corps to train in its secondary schools; and whether he will try to persuade education authorities who do not allow such corps to use their schools to change their practice?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The answer to the first part of the question is, "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, I anticipate that educational authorities who refuse to allow cadets to use their schools will only change their attitude under increasing pressure of public opinion in favour of allowing such use.

Sir W. Davison: Is it not a fact that the Government give 50 per cent. grant to secondary schools and, having regard to the fact that the Government are in need of officers, is it not fair that a less grant should be paid to schools which do not give the necessary facilities?

Major Macnamara: Is it not time that the central Government exerted their authority and forced their orders to be carried out by the local governments?

BUCKINGHAM PALACE GUARDS (GREATCOATS).

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for War why the Guards at Buckingham Palace were in greatcoats at midday on a day so warm as 30th March; and whether he will issue instructions that in future greater attention shall be paid to their comfort?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: 31st March was the last day appointed for the wearing of greatcoats. The practice of wearing greatcoats until the end of March has, on the whole, served the comfort of the Guard.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITING).

Major Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view

of the successful experiment in Aberdeen and his desire that it would be repeated elsewhere, there is to be a concentrated recruiting week for all Territorials in the London area?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The matter rests in the hands of the Territorial Army associations concerned, which are responsible for recruiting. The recent effort in the City of London was on behalf of all units administered by the London City and County Associations. The County of Middlesex are shortly running a recruiting week, and it is possible that other associations in the home counties will follow suit.

ALIENS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether aliens landing in this country for the purpose of taking employment in specific jobs have to obtain a fresh permit alternatively to leaving the country if they do not, in fact, take up or if they abandon such jobs?

Mr. Lloyd: An alien who is admitted to this country under a Ministry of Labour permit for a particular post is not at liberty to take another post without authority.

Mr. Mander: What steps are being taken by the Home Office to ascertain whether the regulations are being complied with?

Mr. Lloyd: The normal machinery of the Home Office and of the police takes care that aliens are not contravening the law.

Mr. Mander: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the regulations are being complied with, and will he be good enough to look into any case to which I might draw his attention?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly, I would look into any question which the hon. Gentleman brought to my notice.

COUNT VON DER GOLTZ.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary why General von der Goltz was refused permission to land at Dover on lath March?

Mr. Lloyd: Count von der Goltz was refused leave to land because it appeared


that the purpose of his visit was concerned with an industrial firm which is under investigation in connection with the activities of another alien. Until the inquiries are completed, I am unable to make any further statement in the matter.

Mr. Strauss: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea when these inquiries will be completed and the results be made public?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot say.

FOREIGN PROPAGANDIST LITERATURE.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: asked the Home Secretary upon what terms as to import duty, quota, or the like, the political propagandist literature emanating from the Co-operative Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is permitted to enter this country; and is there at the port of entry any and, if so, what inspection of such literature in order to prevent the landing in this country of printed matter of a seditious, obscene, or otherwise objectionable character?

Mr. Lloyd: The importation of obscene matter is prohibited by the Customs Act. As regards propagandist literature, our law allows, as my hon. Friend knows, a wide liberty for the expression of opinions, but the Customs officers call the attention of the police to any publication coming under their notice which is of such a character that it appears to contravene the law, in order that any necessary action may be taken.

Miss Wilkinson: Has the hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that obscene literature is proceeding from any other than a German source?

FREE FERRY, JARROW (GRANT).

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that the new rate in Jarrow has been fixed at 22s. in the £ and that this makes any additional expenditure on the free ferry impossible, and owing to the importance of the road for through traffic, he will make proposals by which the extra cost can be met above the 60 per cent. grant already offered?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): When the ferry was freed my right hon. Friend undertook to contribute at the rate of 60 per cent. not only towards the cost of working expenses and towards any necessary expenditure on the improvement of landing stages and boats, but also to outstanding loan charges. This rate of grant is the maximum applicable to Class I roads, that is, to through roads of first-class importance. My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to offer a higher rate.

Miss Wilkinson: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the situation in Jarrow is such that this ferry is likely to founder with the loss of a considerable number of lives unless more money is spent on it, and that this heavily rated area is utterly unable to spend more money on it; and may I ask why he insists upon making the same answer in view of the very great danger that exists, and whether he will look into the matter?

Captain Hudson: I will look into the matter, but we have done our best.

UNEMPLOYMENT (SUNDERLAND AND SOUTH SHIELDS).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the percentage of insured unemployment for the borough of Sunderland is 26.1 and for the borough of South Shields 31.9; and what steps he is taking to deal with this situation?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given to his similar question on 29th June, 1937. Since then the Commissioner for the Special Areas has acquired a site for a number of factories at Pallion and two tenants have already been secured.

Mr. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is being done at South Shields?

Mr. Brown: Not at the moment.

Mr. Lawson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the figures of one in four unemployed in Sunderland and practically one in three in South Shields, and is anything being done?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will surely not forget that something has been done, and that there has been provision of a 17-acre estate, for which tenants have already been found.

Mr. Ede: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that doing something for Sunderland is not necessarily doing something for South Shields?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman knows that unemployment figures are not the only test to be applied.

Mr. Ede: Can the Minister point to any other place with as high a figure as this one?

Mr. Brown: Yes, there are several.

Miss Wilkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman include them in his next survey of prosperity in this country?

MILITARY INFORMATION (EXCHANGES WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether similar or any provisional military arrangements or exchanges of information, such as have occurred between this country and France, have taken place also between Great Britain and other countries where direct treaty obligations exist such as Portugal, Iraq, Egypt, and Belgium, or countries to which we have mutual obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations, or whether any are contemplated?

The Prime Minister: Exchanges of military information with foreign countries normally take place through the medium of Service Attaches. No provisional military arrangements of the nature suggested have taken place with Portugal, but a British Military Mission is at present in Portugal for the purpose of discussing matters of general interest to both countries. British forces are stationed in Egypt and in Iraq under the terms of the treaties of alliance between the United Kingdom and these two countries, and there is naturally in each case very close co-operation between the British and Allied forces. There are, furthermore, British Military Missions at present in both countries. As regards Belgium, my statement on 30th March

in reply to the hon. Member's question regarding France, would apply equally to that country. No provisional military arrangements or exchanges of information have taken place or are contemplated with other members of the League of Nations.

Mr. Mander: Do I understand that the Government are planning to go to war if necessary in defence of Portugal and its colonies?

The Prime Minister: I cannot keep pace with the hon. Gentleman's understanding.

TAXATION.

Colonel Nathan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, before the date of opening his Budget, he will publish in a White Paper or other convenient form a statement showing the burden, apart from death duties, of direct and indirect taxation, respectively, on various grades of income?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The amount of indirect taxation borne by individuals depends largely on their different personal tastes. In view of the great labour involved in the calculations suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, and of the hypothetical character of the ultimate result, I do not feel justified in having the preparation of such a statement undertaken.

Colonel Nathan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such calculations have been made unofficially by members of various bodies; and could not the facilities given by those bodies for the instruction of the public be equally given by the Treasury?

Sir J. Simon: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, a number of calculations have been made by unofficial bodies, but in making such calculations a great many different hypotheses could be made, and I think the answer I have given stands, that there is no official basis.

Colonel Nathan: Is it not desirable that the public should be informed as to what the Government themselves conceive to be the burden of direct and indirect taxation respectively?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Does the assessment of people depend in any way upon the degree of prosperity which they appear to exude?

Colonel Nathan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate proportions that direct taxation, indirect taxation, and local rates, respectively, in respect of the revenue year 1937–38 bear to the national income for the same year?

Sir J. Simon: I regret that no official estimates of the national income are available, and that, therefore, the desired proportions cannot be given.

Colonel Nathan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the late Lord Snowden was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour administration, a statement was made as to the Government's assumption with regard to the national income and the proportion which taxation bore to that income; and cannot the present Chancellor of the Exchequer do, for the information of the House and of the public, what the late Lord Snowden did in 1930?

Sir J. Simon: I was not aware that such a statement had been made, but, even so, if an assumption as to the total figure has to be made, the figures for the proportions will also be on an assumed basis.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not better to take money from people after they are dead than when they are alive?

DEATH DUTIES.

Colonel Nathan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he computes would be the effect upon the revenue if Estate Duty were permitted to be paid out of moneys resulting from life policies taken out for the sole purpose of answering the liability to Estate Duty and themselves excluded from the computation of the deceased's estate for the purpose of Estate Duty?

Sir J. Simon: Proposals of this character have been frequently the subject of discussion in Finance Bill Debates, and have been found to be so costly that they could not be entertained. As regards the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion of exempting the proceeds of insurance policies used for payment of Death Duties, it is estimated that, if all taxpayers took advantage of the relief, the annual cost to the Exchequer might reach as high a figure as £20,000,000.

NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what amount of National Defence Contribution has been paid for the year ended 31st March?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The yield of the National Defence Contribution in the year just ended was £1,420,000.

Mr. Thorne: Can the Financial Secretary say whether that amount is more or less than was anticipated, and why?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The amount estimated was £2,000,000.

Mr. Thorne: Why have you not got the £2,000,000?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Perhaps the hon. Member will lend us the aid of his skill in estimating. I assure him it is not easy.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the figures for the years 1927 and 1937, respectively, showing the incomes of those who pay Income Tax and Surtax, separately, as follows: incomes up to £500 a year, from £500 to £1,000, from £1,000 to £2,000, and over £2,000?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: As the assessments to Income Tax in respect of individuals with incomes not exceeding £2,000 are not classified by reference to total income, I regret that the information for incomes in the ranges up to £2,000 is not available. The hon. Member will, however, find estimates of the total numbers and incomes of Income Taxpayers in recent years in Tables 43 and 44 of the 80th Annual Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Command Paper 5574), and a classification of the assessments to Surtax on individuals with incomes over £2,000 in the table on page 67 of the same report.

Mr. Smith: Seeing that the Financial Secretary 15 years ago answered a question of the character of that which is now on the Paper, will the present Financial Secretary, if this question is put down again, give an answer to it?

CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister particulars of the steps His Majesty's Ambassador in China has been called upon to take in the protection of British interests and trade in North China through conditions imposed on this country by Japan?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): Frequent representations have been made during the last few weeks to the Japanese Government and to the local Japanese authorities in China with a view to the protection of British interests in North China and to the maintenance and preservation of treaty rights. The matters principally dealt with have been the integrity of the Chinese Customs, the uniformity and proper application of the tariff, the currency and the institution of monopolies. His Majesty's Ambassadors in China and Japan will, of course, continue to watch the situation closely.

Mr. Day: Are these the only steps that have been taken?

Mr. Butler: It is a comprehensive survey.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to use the National Health Insurance funds to give increased benefits to those disabled by incurable illness?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): Provision is already made under the scheme of National Health Insurance for persons who were insured under the Acts at the time when they became disabled. Such persons, as soon as they have paid 104 weekly contributions, become entitled to disablement benefit up to the age of 65, and thereafter to an old age pension for the rest of life. Any approved society which has a disposable surplus on valuation may apply part of it to increasing the standard rate of disablement benefit, and societies covering a high percentage of the whole insured population have in fact done so.

RATES.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Health the amount of rates collected by

local authorities in England and Wales during the years 1927 and 1937, respectively?

Mr. Bernays: The figures for the finoncial years 1927–28 and 1937–38 are £166,679,000 and £176,000,000, respectively, the latter figure being an estimate.

FAIREY AVIATION WORKS, STOCKPORT (SABOTAGE).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that in the opinion of the aircraft shop stewards at the Fairey works the damage done to engines is largely due to large-scale dilution and the introduction of unskilled labour into the industry; and whether he will make inquiries as to the reasons why the management has refused to allow accredited representatives of the men to examine the actual damage that has been done?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): I am not aware that such an opinion has been expressed by the shop stewards at the Stockport factory, and I would remind the hon. Member that the damage to the "Battle" aircraft in question was definitely caused by malicious action. As regards the last part of the question, I am in communication with the firm in this matter.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a serious situation arising at these works, that the shop stewards are convinced that the engineering trade, particularly in the turning section, is being over-diluted, and that this is a menace to the whole industry? Will he make inquiries along those lines, in order to try and give satisfaction to the shop stewards who are discontented?

Earl Winterton: No, Sir. I am afraid I cannot accept that. As I understand it, the purpose of the original question was to suggest that this damage was done by unskilled labour. It is definitely malicious damage. Therefore, the question of skilled or unskilled labour does not come into the picture. As to the last part of the question, I have already said that I am in communication with the firm on the matter.

Mr. Kirkwood: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the question, he will see that it distinctly states that the shop stewards are of opinion that the damage done to the engines is largely due to large-scale dilution. That is the whole crux of the question, and as a result there is discontent abroad.

Earl Winterton: I understand the question perfectly. It is suggested that the damage is done through unskilled labour. I say that it is malicious damage.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the effect of all these statements that are going abroad, all men employed by this firm are to some extent under suspicion; and will he take early steps to make a statement clearing at least all people who are innocent?

Earl Winterton: It is impossible to clear everybody until you know who is responsible. I have already given a promise to the House, and I am in communication with the firm in question. It is impossible to make a statement of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman until we know who is guilty.

Mr. Radford: Could the boring of holes through petrol tanks be owing to dilution?

Mr. E. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider the need for representatives of the work-people being included among those in charge of any investigation which is going to take place?

Earl Winterton: What I said was that I was in communication with the firm on the point referred to in the question. I have not the slightest doubt that the firm are taking this into consideration, and are getting into communication with the accredited representatives of the work-people.

Mr. Burke: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the standard of efficiency at the head of the Department and the head of the firm also?

Earl Winterton: The House must not assume that the Air Ministry has complete control in this matter. It can only make representations. I am in entire sympathy with the view expressed opposite, that every step should be taken to ascertain the cause.

Mr. Maxton: Does the right hon. Gentleman refuse the specific request in the question, that accredited representatives of the men shall be allowed to see the actual damage?

Earl Winterton: That is a matter on which I must communicate with the firm before I can give a definite answer. Most probably they are in communication with the accredited representatives of the men.

Mr. Kirkwood: Arising from that——

Mr. Speaker: rose——

AUSTRIA.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister what diplomatic and consular representation this country will maintain in that part of Germany which formerly constituted the Republic of Austria?

Mr. Butler: As His Majesty's Ambassador informed the German Government on 2nd April, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have decided to withdraw the Legation in Vienna, and to replace it, on or about 15th April, by a Consulate-General. It is intended to retain the Consulate at Innsbruck for the present.

Mr. Maxton: What happens to the Ambassador who is displaced in such circumstances?

Mr. Butler: A disponibilité.

Mr. Thorne: May we have a translation?

Mr. Maxton: May I express the hope that he will enjoy it?

Miss Wilkinson: May I ask the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: rose——

Miss Wilkinson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary? There are still 10 minutes left.

SPAIN.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Mr. H. A. R. Philpot has been offered the decoration of the Military Merit Cross by General Franco; and whether Mr. Philpot has been authorised to accept this decoration?

Mr. Butler: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to Mr. H. A. R. Philby, a newspaper correspondent serving with General Franco's forces. I have seen in the Press a report of the award of a medal by the Spanish Nationalist authorities to this gentleman. Mr. Philby has not sought and has not been given any official authority to accept the distinction in question.

CONDUCT OF MEMBERS (MR. SPEAKER'S STATEMENT).

Sir Hugh O'Neill: I rise to ask, on a point of Order, whether you, Mr. Speaker, will give further consideration to the incident which arose in the House yesterday, and, if so, whether you desire to make a statement to the House?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member has raised the question of the incident which occurred in the House yesterday afternoon, and as the honour and reputation of the House is concerned I feel bound, for the future guidance of the House, to give him a considered reply. I am, as all well know, the guardian of the honour of the House, and hon. Members have the right to look for protection from me in carrying on their duties as Members of Parliament in a peaceful and orderly manner. If at any time I may have seemed to fail in that duty it certainly has not been for want of trying, and I ask, and know that I shall have, the indulgence of the House. An incident such as took place yesterday is, happily, of rare occurrence, but the House will understand that I consider it of the gravest character. I do not put blame on one Member more than another, but incidents such as occurred yesterday, whoever is to blame, lower the reputation of this House, not only in this country but in the eyes of the world. We have here the priceless possession of a democratic House of Commons with a long tradition of orderly conduct in Debate, and never

was it more important that that tradition should be maintained than it is to-day.

The particular circumstances surrounding yesterday's incident made it, in my judgment, after careful consideration, impossible for me to act otherwise than I did, but let it not be considered that any similar case may ever occur in future without fear of consequent punishment. An attack of personal violence in the House by one Member on another is, under any circumstances and whatever the provocation, without justification. In this case, both Members having expressed an ample apology to the House for their behaviour, I hope that, although the incident may not be forgotten, it may now be considered closed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: Will the Prime Minister state the business for Friday, and also state for what purpose he is moving to suspend the Rule to-day?

The Prime Minister: The business for Friday will be: Consideration of the Italian and Rumanian Clearing Office Amendment Orders; Second Reading of the Trade Marks Bill [Lords] and of the Patents, etc. (International Conventions) Bill [Lords]; and, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.
With regard to to-night's business, we want to obtain the Third Reading of the Coal Bill to-day. We are moving the suspension of the Rule as a precaution, in view of the interruption of the Debate at 7.30 for a private Bill, on which I am informed a Debate will take place.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 111.

Division No. 164.
AYES.
3.41 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Albery, Sir Irving
Bernays, R. H.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Bull, B. B.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J..
Blair, Sir R.
Bullock, Capt. M.


Assheton, R.
Bossom, A. C.
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Boulton, W. W.
Burton, Col. H. W.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Boyce, H. Leslie
Butcher, H. W.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Brisoe, Capt. R. G.
Caine, G. R. Hall-


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Cartland, J. R. H.




Carver, Major W. H.
Hartington, Marquess of
Radford, E. A.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rankin, Sir R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Channon, H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Higgs, W. F.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Christie, J. A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Holdsworth, H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Holmes, J. S.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hopkinson, A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rowlands, G.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Howitt, Dr. A. B
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hulbert, N. J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hunter, T.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Salmon, Sir I.


Critchley, A
Joel, D. J. B.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Sandeman, Sir N. S


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Sandys, E. D.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Unive.)
Savery, Sir Servington


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Scott, Lord William


Davison, Sir W. H.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Seely, Sir H. M.


De la Bère, R.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Selley, H. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Denville, Alfred
Levy, T.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Dodd, J. S.
Lewis, O.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Doland, G. F.
Liddall, W. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Donner, P. W.
Lipson, D. L.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Lloyd, G. W.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Smith. Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Duggan, H. J.
Loftus, P. C.
Somerset, T.


Duncan, J. A. L.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Ellis, Sir G.
McKie, J. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Elmley, Viscount
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Emery, J. F.
Macnamara, Major J. R. J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Magnay, T.
Storey, S.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maitland, A.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Errington, E.
Mander, G. le M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'k)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Markham, S. F.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Fildes, Sir H.
Marsden, Commander A.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Fleming, E. L.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Touche, G. C.


Furness, S. N.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Train, Sir J.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wakefield, W. W.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Goldie, N. B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wardlaw-Milns, Sir J. S.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wells, S. R.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbre, W)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Williams. H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Grimston, R. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord



Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Patrick, C. M.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. O. H.
Peake, O.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hambro, A. V.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Hannah, I. C.
Petherick, M.
Wragg, H.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pilkington, R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Harbord, A.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.



Harris, Sir P. A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bromfield, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Banfield, J. W.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)


Adamson, W. M.
Barr, J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Batey, J.
Buchanan, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Benson, G.
Burke, W. A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Bevan, A.
Cape, T.







Cassells, T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Ridley, G.


Charieton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Riley, B.


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ritson, J.


Cripps. Hon. Sir Stafford
Kelly, W. T.
Shinwell, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Day, H.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Dobbie, W.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Ede, J. C.
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leonard, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)



Gardner, B. W.
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Garro Jonas, G. M.
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
McGovern, J.
Tomlinson, G.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Grenfell, D. R.
Marshall, F.
Walker, J.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mathers, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Maxton, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Messer, F.
Westwood, J.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Montague, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Hardie, Agnes
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Hayday, A.
Muff, G.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Paling, W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Parker, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hollins, A.
Parkinson, J. A.
Young, Sir R. (Nawton)


Hopkin, D.
Pearson, A.



Jagger, J.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 120.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 96.]

SCOTTISH LAND COURT BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 96.]

CONVEYANCING AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 121.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 98.]

GUILDFORD CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

DOGS AMENDMENT BILL (changed from "DOGS ACT (1871) AMEND MENT BILL").

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 122.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law with respect to assizes and to quarter sessions and with respect to proceedings on the Crown side of the King's Bench Division of the High Court; to enable effect to be given to international conventions affecting English Courts; to extend the jurisdiction of county courts and to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and the County Courts Act, 1934; to amend the law relating to appeals from the Mayor's and City of London Court; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." [Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords.]

FOOD AND DRUGS BILL [Lords].

That they have appointed a Committee consisting of seven Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the Food and Drugs Bill, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

Orders of the Day — COAL BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.—(King's Consent signified.)

3.51 p.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
The Prime Minister said yesterday that there had been 13 days' debate on Foreign Affairs this Session. Coal has gone a little better. This is the fifteenth day on the Bill, and as there is no Motion down for its rejection, I take it that if it has not the actual good will of all hon. Members, it has, at any rate, their benevolent neutrality. We have been engaged on this problem since early November. I think we can say that the Bill came in like a lion and is going out as a lamb. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shorn."] What is quite true is that we have debated it fully, we have never had unduly late sittings, and the Closure has not once been moved. Yet I think that every point of substance has been adequately discussed, and, with all respect to the hon. Member opposite, nothing fundamental has been shorn from it. Indeed, I think my right hon. Friend and I have reason to be grateful to the legal Members of the House for the help they have given, and especially to the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) in that field of the law of which he is a master. We are also grateful to hon. Members opposite for the constructive assistance they have given once they had passed the necessity of making their political speeches. But if there were to be any award of distinguished service medals and good conduct badges, I think they should go particularly to some hon. Members on this side of the House who felt that as a result of Part I they were going to suffer considerable damage. I have never seen the old House of Commons tradition more honourably exemplified than in their case; that is, the old practice by which a Parliamentary position should not be used for personal advantage. I hope the attitude they have adopted will be noted elsewhere, and particularly in the constituencies which they so ably represent.
In the five months that have passed we have had opportunities for considering

the Bill in all its details, and, even if it has opposition to meet in the future, we can be satisfied that it has suffered comparatively little change in this House. On the Third Reading of the Bill one is somewhat in the position of a person who has taken a house for a certain period and is about to move out. He stands on the last day looking round the room to see if there is anything that has been overlooked in the packing. That is what we are concerned with to-day. What has perhaps emerged more clearly than seemed to be the case five months ago is a better realisation of the dependence of the three Parts of the Bill on each other. Part I, dealing with unification, is in the Bill on its merits; Part II, dealing with organisation, is in the Bill on its merits; and Part III enables adequate finance to be pumped into the industry for the benefit of those concerned therein. It has, however, become increasingly clear that because Part III is in the Bill it is absolutely essential that Parts I and II should be retained.
May I say a few words on Part III which has certainly during recent months raised much opposition in many quarters. I am not far wrong in saying that either in the Bill or otherwise we have met all the legitimate complaints which consumers have brought to our notice, and which we thought to be well founded. This part of the Bill occupies only a short space in the Bill. In Clause 46 legislative sanction is provided under which selling schemes can work, and the Eighth Schedule deals with the composition of the committees of investigation before whom complaints may be brought. But beyond that we have recently not only promised a public inquiry into the problems which are exercising hon. Members in all quarters of the House regarding the distributive costs of coal, but because existing selling schemes do not in themselves cover certain of the points which were of interest to hon. Members who speak for the consumers, my right hon. Friend and I have been able to secure from the Central Council of Coalowners certain assurances to the effect that they would not insist on the letter of the schemes in connection with these points, but that they would make it possible for complaints on these points to come before the committees of investigation to be heard. During the Debates many hon. Members have pointed out


that that was not perhaps very satisfactory, that although there was no reason to doubt the value of the assurances given, they preferred to get something statutory on this point. On further examination it has been found possible for this to be done, and the various district selling schemes will, therefore, be amended by the coalowners in the directions necessary to cover these points. While that could not be done by the Bill, yet of course it covers a very important aspect of the problems involved, and to that extent I think we can congratulate ourselves and say that it has been a satisfactory solution after the very long arguments raised in the House.
However, I must say that there have been some misunderstandings, if not misrepresentations, still continuing about the schemes. I do not want to go over the whole ground again, but I would like to make two points, with both of which a large number of hon. Members of this House are concerned. I received from many of my colleagues correspondence, based upon a circular letter which originated from some laundry association or another, and it was based on a certain misapprehension, because the letter stated that unless the coal was bought direct from a colliery the aid of a committee of investigation could not be invoked. That is not quite correct. The aid of a committee of investigation can be invoked, but not with regard to the whole of the distributor's price. Complaint can lie because the purchaser thought that the price for which the colliery was responsible at the beginning was too high, or because he has a complaint about any other matter arising out of the operations of the selling scheme. The second misapprehension was in a letter which appeared in the Press on 7th March from some hon. Members who sit on these benches, a letter which, to put it mildly, was somewhat misleading. It was stated in that letter, or implied, that the ordinary householder would in future be unable to change his coal merchant. The letter stated:
In the past such a consumer has remedied his grievance by changing his supplier. This in effect he will no longer be allowed to do.
Various hon. Members of this House signed that letter and it appeared in the

Press. I think it was written under a misapprehension and that the hon. Members concerned would be the first to wish me to clear away that misapprehension. These schemes do not prevent Mr. A or Mrs. B from changing the merchant who supplies them with a hundredweight of coal, that is if they wish to change. This part of the Bill is intended to lead to proper and orderly marketing, to the benefit of all concerned, and I think it will do so. The House would be really surprised if hon. Members had some of the information that I have received from time to time as to how really large and prosperous concerns have frequently in the past not bought coal under any form of contract but have always bought it in odd lots. It has been very much like, say, a wealthy householder not running an account with a butcher but going to Smithfield market every day for one cutlet. The scheme of the Bill will certainly lead to less undercutting of prices amongst the collieries themselves, and in due time it will certainly lead to better and more orderly marketing; and as the result of the safeguards which we have been able to secure, both in the Bill with regard to the committees of investigation and in the assurances which are to be translated into statutory effect in a very short time by the Amendments to which I have referred, I think the House will find that we have done the best that we can to make this part of the Bill really effective.
If this part of the Bill tends to raise the selling price, then Part I of the Bill tends in the long run to reduce overheads, and enables better technical planning by the unification, under one ownership, of all the coal measures of the country. After all, there are plenty of difficulties, natural and otherwise, in winning coal to-day, and if by unifying the ownership of the minerals we can do something to reduce these difficulties, it seems to us desirable to do it. In recent years a good deal has been done, by means of the Working Facilities Legislation and so on, but yet inquiry after inquiry has pointed out that the complete solution of the problem would be along the lines of the Bill. After the debates which we have had, the House must certainly be aware that this is an enormous operation, one which bristles with difficulties, and it cannot and will not have any immediate or startling results. All along the party opposite have


been extremely impatient over this matter. This is something done in the nature of a real long-term policy. When there have been centuries of separate ownership of these coal measures, the termination of that system, and the transition, the placing of them into one hand, is obviously bound to be slow.
During the Debates we have in great detail examined the plans put forward for purchasing the minerals and for conpensating the existing owners. A global figure of £66,450,000 was adopted as a result of the finding of an independent tribunal, and that figure still remains in the Bill in spite of the opposition of hon. Members opposite, which I once again note, because while they speak so glibly of wishing to pay compensation for properties which must be taken over, here was a case where agreement could not be reached between purchaser and seller and the matter went to impartial arbitration, and when we accepted the award hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to write in a lower figure of their own notion. We note that this is their idea of fair compensation after what has been awarded impartially. In the Bill the figure remains as we introduced it.
Under Clause 3 vesting will not take place until 1st July, 1942, but the valuation will take place as on 1st January next. During the three-and-a-half years interval the property will remain under a notional contract for sale, which will be found in Clause 3; and during the interim period the existing owners will continue in the enjoyment of their properties. But of course it has to be remembered that under the Bill the Commission is not ineffective during that interim period. It can proceed to do a certain amount of consolidation of leases, quite apart from the functions it has to perform under other parts of the Bill.
In the meantime, while the Bill is before Parliament, the registration of the properties is proceeding. It may interest hon. Members to know that up to date no fewer than 17,105 applications have been received, and up to 26th March 2,293 of those applications have been examined, 1,279 draft particulars have been dispatched and 404 draft particulars have been settled and will be registered unless notification of objection is received. That shows that the task which we embarked upon as a result of the Act passed last Session has already involved

a great deal of labour as a preliminary to this Bill. It is hoped that by the valuation date the particulars will be registered in respect of the major portion of the holdings regarding which applications have been made already or will be made during this year.
The machinery of the Third Schedule, as hon. Members will realise, is complicated and difficult, and in regard to the devising of it I should like to acknowledge the fact that we received the cooperation of the agents for the mineral owners, who were experts in matters of his kind. In view of the complications of that machinery it might be convenient if I took this opportunity very briefly to explain what the time table is. I leave out all the details which in certain cases may arise, but briefly, before the valuation date—that is on the assumption that this part of the Bill is not altered between now and the time when it reaches the Statute Book—before the valuation date on 1st January next the royalty owner may apply to have his property registered. Then up to 1st July of next year the owner who is already registered can apply to have the register corrected in the light of what may appear in this Bill as an Act. Before that date he must also submit a claim for compensation in respect of his registered holding. After 1st July the Commission passes on to the regional valuation board, set up under the Third Schedule, the registration which has been effected, and at the same time it gives notice to the claimants of having done so. Then the claimant, within the period which may be specified, must deliver to the valuation board his estimate of the value of his claim. The valuation board, having received that, makes its own first draft award and communicates that to the claimant. Then there is the informal stage when the claimant has the right to go to the valuation board if he wishes to discuss his own valuation and the draft valuation of the regional board. The regional board then makes its award, a settled one, and if after that the claimant is dissatisfied with the award he can appeal to have the matter sent before a referee, and the referee's award is final.
That, briefly, is the machinery so far as the individual owner of coal is concerned. But it may be useful to remind the House that in paragraph 15 (2) of the Third Schedule the Commission will not


be liable to pay any costs in respect of a holding which is ultimately certified to have no value. Otherwise, of course, the general costs of all this procedure of registration and valuation falls upon the Commission and not upon the present owner of the coal.
There have been no alterations in the financial provisions of the Bill, except that we have made it clear in Clause 21 that it is the function of the Commission to act as a good landlord and that in certain circumstances it may make remissions of rent. Likewise in Clause 12 (2) we have indicated that the Commission may take account of the peculiar position which might arise in certain circumstances when giving leases, which they have to do, to the present freehold owners of coal, who are working it as collieries. I think that generally this Part I of the Bill, complicated, legal and technical though it is, not only has received a blessing for its drafting, in spite of criticisms in this House, but has received the blessing of many of those who are most closely associated with this branch of the law. I think we have achieved what we set out to do—that is, to purchase at a fair price the coal measures from their present owners and to vest them as soon as may be in the hands of one authority who in the future will act as a model landlord administering a property worth over £66,000,000 in the interests of the coal industry, but subject from time to time to general direction from the President of the Board of Trade in matters which the Government of the day consider to be of national interest.
Part III of the Bill is devised to bring more money into the industry, and Part I of the Bill, over a long period, tends to reduce overhead charges in the industry and to bring about better technical development and planning of the industry. Part II attempts to ensure a better organisation of the industry. This, we must admit also, is a fairly contentious part of the Measure, but here again there has been a great deal of misunderstanding, to put it mildly, because there will certainly not be any wholesale amalgamations by compulsion as soon as the Bill becomes law. From some of the speeches that have been made and some of the publications that have been issued,

one would have thought that was to be the immediate result, whereas, of course, under Clause 43, the duty of the Coal Commission, which will be taking over the present duties of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Committee, will be to effect a reduction in the number of undertakings, and it will have in reserve the weapon of compulsion.
All this, of course, goes back to the 1930 Act, when it was propounded that further integration in the coal industry was desirable. In our view the Coal Commission, which will have this responsibility of administering the property in coal, should also have the power to deal with organisation in the same way as the 1930 Act made it incumbent upon the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission to deal with it. There are those who say that it is quite unnecessary to have further amalgamation, but it is interesting to note that in the House the two hon. Members who are themselves largely interested in collieries—my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) have both been, not only in theory but in practice, advocates of greater integration, since the undertakings with which they are respectively concerned have done a great deal in that direction since 1930. I would remind the House, however, that the Mining Association most vociferously urged the Government to abandon this part of the Bill altogether, but neither the Government nor the House saw fit to do anything of the kind, and Part II remains in the Bill. I will quote three sentences on this subject—not because I wish to argue it all over again, but because I think there may be some recrudescence of the attacks on that Part of the Bill—from the manifesto to which I have referred. One sentence said of this Part of the Bill that:
It is a long and grave step towards State Socialism.
Another sentence was:
Is the red tape of Whitehall to bind industry irrevocably?
The third sentence was:
Parliament is being asked to sanction powers to the bureaucracy which will strike at the very root of business enterprise.

Mr. Holdsworth: Hear, hear

Captain Crookshank: In spite of the support of that by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), I can only say that remarks of that kind are really very quaint. They have no real relationship to the facts or to the issues raised by Part II of the Bill. I am fortified in saying that—and I wish merely to put these words on record—by the fact that the "Daily Express" which, after all, is by no means a Socialist organ, considered that these proposals were correct, and that another newspaper which, at any rate in home affairs, is completely reliable, used the following sentence on this subject:
This unmeasured language is ill-suited to the mouths of those whose industry was rescued from suicide by the action of the State, and who to-day are relying on the State to continue to preserve it from those suicidal tendencies by re-enacting the coal-selling legislation.
That was stated in the "Times." It may be of interest to hon. Members to know that the first letter which I received when that agitation commenced was from a person who was interested as a shareholder in colliery undertakings, and who said that in his view what we were doing was quite correct. I will also quote the view expressed by an extremely practical person, and reported in "The Colliery Guardian." It was a statement made at a public function by Mr. Charles Reid of the Fife Coal Company, a person of great ability and knowledge in these matters, and it was:
The hour for greater co-operation has arrived. In my judgment the new Coal Bill will make for greater benefit to the people of the country than anything that has been attempted during the past 10 years.
Another gentleman connected with the coal industry on the North East coast, in the Consett district, said:
I cannot see that any other conclusion can he drawn than that there is not only excess capacity but also the possibilities of greater efficiency and reduction in overhead expenses by compression of the industry into fewer but more efficient undertakings.
That was Mr. Frater Taylor's remark on this topic. I merely make these quotations in order to indicate to hon. Members who may not be fully seized of the intricacies of these affairs that all the propaganda and talk which has come from one quarter against Part II of the Bill is not shared everywhere, even in the coal-mining industry. Indeed, I think that

when the phrase is specifically used that in future the coal industry will be subject to the mere fiat of the Coal Commission, it is straining words, because not only the original procedure in the Bill, as introduced, but certainly the procedure now adopted in Clause 43, of proceeding by Provisional Order, of giving opportunities to hear those who wish to be heard in the national interest, of permitting the matter to come before the House, and thereafter having the Commission put its schemes before the Railway and Canal Commission, indicates much more than that the Coal Commission's fiat is final. I would rather put it that it will be the Commission which will propose, and that somebody else will dispose.
It is worth calling attention to the fact that when hon. Members opposite discussed this matter during the Committee stage, my right hon. Friend and I had considerable difficulties at times in discovering whether they approved of Part II of the Bill or not. Some did approve, and some did not. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), who celebrated his golden wedding during the passage of the Bill, said that he looked upon amalgamations with fear. Whereas the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) was a firm believer in them, the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was rather doubtful, because he told us that time and again he had not been very satisfied with the results of some of the voluntary amalgamations of which he had had experience. In spite of that, the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. A. Jenkins) was so horrified at the idea that possibly there might be a close season during which Provisional Orders would not be introduced into the House, that he moved a manuscript Amendment so that we could adopt that procedure at any time, thus indicating that he was desperately anxious to have compulsory amalgamations all the while. Hon. Members opposite have never made it quite clear exactly where they stand in this matter. But I think that probably they will share my view—which I hope indeed will be the view of the whole House when we come to vote on the Third Reading—that if we give to the coal industry these great powers, with Statutory help, of controlling sales, then it is imperative that from the point of view of the country, the industry should be organised as well as possible. While the method of amalgamation is not


the only way—and some hon. Members may say that it is not even the best way—yet it is a weapon with which we think the Coal Commission should be armed, if necessary, although they will not be able to wield that weapon until Parliament has had an opportunity of saying, "Yes, this is a case in which you should exercise your powers."
I think I have now said enough on the Bill, especially as I have made a good many speeches in the course of the Debates on it; but I hope I have been able to make quite clear, to-day if not before, how closely connected and how interwoven are the three Parts of the Bill. One part or another cannot be taken out if it is to be an effective Measure. It is now three years since I began closely to study this problem of coal in the office which I now hold. I think there will be general agreement that we all want to see a happy, prosperous and contented industry. Hon. Members opposite think that we can only get that by State ownership, State control, and State assistance in finance. That is a pure assertion on their part, but one can respect them for their thoughts, however odd. Some of my hon. Friends on this side, in their desire to achieve the same end, would like us to put the clock back, and to see Parliament shake itself completely clear of all coal legislation.

Mr. Holdsworth: Hear, hear.

Captain Crookshank: I knew that the hon. Member would cheer that. I think that really the balance between the two points of view is a very delicate one. We part company with the Opposition because we hold that the method of private ownership and private enterprise in industry is the better way, but we say that there are certain directions in which, in certain circumstances, support of some kind from the State is essential. This Bill deals with three different interests. It deals with the interests of the present owners of the coal measures, it deals with the colliery owners, and their workmen, and it deals, of course, with the interests of the community as a whole.
Under the Bill we unify the property in coal and give statutory authority to the industry's own plan—not our plan—for selling its products to the advantage of the employers and the men. In doing

all that, we are trying to secure the larger interest of the community. I think I will carry hon. Gentlemen with me, if I add that, however much we may chop and change, and alter legislation, in the long run the success of the industry depends upon human factors. The happiness, contentment and prosperity of those engaged in the industry depend upon good relationship between employers and employed. That we cannot import by legislation, but we think that by what we are proposing in this Bill, we are doing something for the better organisation of the industry and that, as a consequence, many of its present difficulties may be swept away. If that be so, then there will be no reason for anyone trying to put into practice the theories of hon. Gentlemen opposite, because the industry will have ample satisfaction under this new plan, and the community as a whole can rejoice that so many of the old difficulties have been overcome, and thus the coal barometer will be "set fair" for everybody. That such may be the result of this legislation is the hope of my right hon. Friend and myself.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I imagine that hon. Members are as tired of Debates on mining legislation as some of them profess to be of Debates on foreign affairs. Fortunately we are to part company with this Bill to-day, unless it is seriously affected as a result of discussions in another place. I thought I detected in the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for Mines a note of apprehension lest in another place the Measure would be emasculated. We can only hope that if such an eventuality should arise, the Government will be less inclined to yield to clamour of that kind than it has been to yield to the demands of hon. Gentlemen opposite in the course of these protracted Debates.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman in his interpretation of the advantages of this Measure argued that the specific remedy advocated by hon. Members on this side would not suit the special circumstances of the mining industry. He said that when we argued for State Socialism in the mining industry and spoke of its advantages, it was pure assertion on our part. It was, he said, a very odd argument. I would remind him that the provisions of this Bill were regarded as odd


by his right hon. Friend and himself some years ago. We all remember the discussions on the Bill which preceded the 1930 Act. I can recall vividly the Puckishness, if I may use that expression, of the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he sat on these benches. It does not lie in his mouth to claim that the case presented by hon. Gentlemen on this side, in relation to what we regard as the positive solution of the mining industry problem, is odd or quaint, or is pure assertion.
The fact which has to be reckoned with in relation to mining legislation is the fact that it appears to be persistent. This Bill is only another milestone on the road—to what? What is the objective which the Government have in view? Do the Government pretend that in consequence of this legislation it is possible to solve the problems which beset the mining industry? That has been tried over and over again. In 1919, in consequence of the adverse effects on the mining industry, which followed from coal control measures and profiteering by coal-owners in the War years, and the position of the export trade following the War, it was found necessary for the Government to interfere in the mining industry. Ever since then, hardly a year has passed without legislation in one form or another intended to revive the mining industry and to solve, partially at least, the problem which confronts that industry.
In spite of all that legislation—and I do not exclude the 1930 Act, which was a compromise Measure, and in the very nature of the case had to be a compromise Measure—no one pretends that the situation in the mining industry is satisfactory to-day. Of course it is true that, owing to some industrial recovery and the state of the internal market, and a. slight improvement in the export trade, the coal industry is more prosperous than it has been for some years. But the very fact that the Government have introduced legislation of this kind, is indicative of their apprehensions regarding the position of the industry in the future. Several tests can be applied to this Measure to ascertain whether it is of value to the industry and those engaged in the industry. Will it lead to efficient organisation, cheaper costs of production, higher wages, regular employment and

protection for consumers, whether industrial or domestic? These are questions of substance and they deserve answers. These are the sole tests that can be applied to this Measure.
Let us see what the Bill does. The Commission is to be entrusted with the administration of coal royalties. The royalty owners are to be compensated and provision is to be made for the amalgamation of mining undertakings. The coal-owners are to remain in possession of their mines and all their existing rights are preserved. On the other hand, no direct benefit accrues to the mine workers and, in so far as there is any indirect benefit, it is contingent upon several factors, some of which may never be translated into reality when this Bill becomes an Act. Last but not least, there is nothing in the Bill which gives assurance to the general body of consumers that their interests are to be safeguarded.
In one respect this Bill establishes a vital principle. I refer to the State acquisition of royalties. Original as the idea may appear to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, it is by no means original to hon. Members on this side. State acquisition of mining royalties has been advocated by the Labour party for well-nigh 40 years. When it was advocated by the Labour Party, hon. Members opposite declared that it was unnecessary, that it was a gross interference with private ownership. Indeed I think some of the noble friends of the Government went so far as to declare that nationalisation of coal royalties would so seriously affect the existing order that it amounted to revolution. The Government have now accepted that principle. It is a belated conversion, and while we entirely agree with the Government in their establishment of such a fundamental principle as the right of the State to own the coal beneath the surface of the earth which is capable of being worked, we feel that the Government in the acquisition of the royalties might have been a little less generous to the alleged owners, having regard to the history of royalties in general.
Let us examine the terms. There is a global sum of £66,000,000 which the owners of royalties are to receive in due course, as soon as the valuations have been settled. We are converting what is undoubtedly a serious industrial risk into



a gilt-edged security. That will not be denied by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He said he would like to pay a tribute to his noble friends He is paying tribute to his noble friends in these generous terms of compensation, and I do not think that I am putting it too high when I say that the fact that his noble friends have been so ready to acquiesce in the proposals of the Government, is an indication that they themselves regard these terms as very generous indeed. Whatever may be their view about the matter, that is certainly the view held by hon. Members on this side.
Once compensation has been paid those who receive it do not care what happens to the industry. What does it matter to them whether the coal is worked or not? It may be that, as a result of a serious diminution in the export trade, or a greater use of some other form of fuel, or for other reasons, certain coal areas will not be used at all. Yet the owners of coal in those areas, once compensated, are relieved of any risk whatever associated with declining exports or the increasing use of other forms of fuel or any of the other factors—some of which are certain to operate in future—which may cause a decline in the industry. In fact, the recipients of these generous terms of compensation are getting out of the Bill everything they can possibly get, whereas the general body of mineworkers and the general body of consumers are to receive little or nothing. Therefore, if the risks which are associated with the ownership of royalties at the present time, before the Bill has become an Act of Parliament, are of a somewhat serious character, surely there was no need for such generous terms of compensation.
The Bill seeks to improve the machinery for amalgamation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman indulged in a little byplay in respect of the views held by hon. Members on this side. Let me explain to him, if I may, what the position of hon. Members on this side is, as regards the general principle underlying the amalgamation of mining undertakings. Of course, we welcome the principle of amalgamation. We would welcome the establishment of amalgamation. We would prefer that the mining industry should be regarded as one single unit, allowing for the necessary local autonomy, for a measure of decentralisation, and the

like. If there is to be amalgamation, it should be wisely controlled and regulated, not necessarily, as is contemplated in this Measure, in the interests of the owners of mining undertakings, but in the interests of the State. That is the principle which underlies our demand for amalgamation of mining undertakings. During the Debates on the Committee and Report stages, we pressed the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary for Mines to consider, through the Commission, some means whereby local authorities and other interested parties, and in particular the mineworkers, should have the right to make representations and have those representations heard and respected.
There is nothing in the Bill, with the exception of the Provisional Order procedure, which offers the slightest safeguard to any person, whether associated with the local authorities or the men engaged in the industry, or which indicates that their views have been heard or are likely to be heard in the future. So far as the owners of mines are concerned, they may take the full opportunity afforded by the Provisional Order procedure to have their case heard, and because they are able to spend large sums of money on briefing expensive counsel and so on, no doubt they will in the long run be successful. So far as amalgamation in this Bill is concerned, all the benefits go to one section of the mining industry, namely, the owners of the mines. Under the existing system their rights are preserved, and under the new system contemplated by the Bill their rights are preserved. They lose nothing; whatever happens, they will be on the right side of the fence.
As regards the Provisional Order procedure, this was a compromise which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade offered in order to meet the views of hon. Members on his own side. His hon. and gallant Friend asked why it was that we desired the Provisional Order procedure to operate throughout the whole year instead of during only a part of the year. After all, if there is to be amalgamation, if demands are to be made for amalgamation, and if the Commission is to operate efficiently and successfully, there is no reason why any imposition of this kind should be placed upon them, and there ought to be no restrictions of any sort or kind. That is why we asked that there


should be the wider scope offered to those who sought, in the amalgamation of mining undertakings, the opportunity to present their case during the whole of the year. In spite of all that, the many restrictions and safeguards which accompany the Provisional Order procedure, the approach to the Railway and Canal Commission, and indeed the impositions and restrictions on the Commission itself, in my judgment make amalgamation of a compulsory character virtually impossible, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman admitted as much. He said—I quote his own words—that there is not going to be wholesale amalgamation as soon as the Bill is passed, and I want to add to that, nor for many years afterwards.
On the other hand, it may well be that voluntary amalgamations may take place, and hon. Members on this side are very apprehensive about the effects of voluntary amalgamation. After all, in the case of compulsory amalgamation under this Bill, however hedged round with restrictions it may be, at least there is some measure of control vested in Parliament, but in respect of voluntary amalgamation there is no control whatever. We can, on convenient days, ask questions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the effects of amalgamation, and I have no doubt we shall receive the usual answer that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has no control whatever over a privately-owned industry. In fact, there is no safeguard in the Bill in respect of voluntary amalgamation, and I noticed that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not refer to that aspect of the question.
Now I want to say a word about the selling schemes. We have never regarded the selling schemes as more than a necessary evil. They were intended to save the coalowners against themselves. They were intended in large measure to eliminate the competitive factor in the mining industry, which we regard as one of the main detriments to successful operation; and if we have supported the continuance of selling schemes, it is not because we regard them s the last word—far from it—but because we prefer some measure of co-ordination rather than a return to the anarchy which formerly prevailed. But it will be noted that there is nothing in the selling schemes which offers any

protection to the retail consumer. It may be that this Bill was not intended to touch the retail consumer of domestic coal, or to touch small quantities of industrial coal, but surely, when the Government introduced comprehensive legislation of this kind—and I take it they have no intention of introducing coal legislation again for a long time to come—they ought to have interested themselves in that large body of small consumers of coal who have no protection either in this Bill or in any other.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Or in the Act of 1930.

Mr. Shinwell: There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to be harking back to the past. That will get him nowhere. Besides, if the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends thought it should have been inserted in the Act of 1930, the opportunity was open to them, but as far as I can recall not a single suggestion of that kind was made at that time.

Mr. Stanley: I am not complaining.

Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman is not complaining, we need not argue that point further. I say that there is no protection for the millions of domestic coal consumers in this country. The right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity. A single Clause or perhaps a number of Clauses, anyhow some part of the Bill, might have been devoted to their interests, but there is not a single line, not a comma, not a letter, not a full stop, which relates to the position of that large body of coal consumers. This is not the appropriate occasion for discussing all the technicalities that surround the passage of coal from the pithead to the cellars of the domestic consumer, but this I say, that the assurances which the right hon. Gentleman secured from the Central Council of Coal-owners have nothing at all to do with this problem of the domestic coal consumer.

Mr. Stanley: On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how far I shall be in order, when I come to reply, in replying on the question of the domestic consumer of coal, considering that it is not in the Bill and that nothing to do with it could have been in the Bill without being out of order?

Mr. Speaker: Before the right hon. Gentleman rose to put that point of Order, I was carefully considering whether I should draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the matters about which he was talking were not covered by the Bill and, therefore, were not, strictly speaking, in order.

Mr. Shinwell: I recognise that, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the assurances given by the Central Council of Coalowners, and I was about to refer to those assurances by indicating that whatever value they might have, they have no value for the large body of domestic consumers in the country. I was also indicating that the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity in this Bill to have done something for that large body of persons.
As regards the strategy that has been employed during our Debates, we have done our utmost to improve the Bill. We want to make it a workable Bill. I admit that we are confronted by a dilemma. There are many of the provisions of this Bill that we like, and there are many that we dislike, but on the whole we prefer this Bill to nothing at all. We would have preferred a Bill which went to the roots of the problem, a Bill which, in a drastic fashion, reorganised the industry from top to bottom, and I venture the prediction that one day—it may be by a National Government, by a Conservative Government, or by a Labour Government—that job will have to be tackled, because then it will no longer be a matter for the politicians; it will be a matter for the country. The nation will demand it, and it may well be that the effects of the working of this Measure may stimulate the demand for more drastic reorganisation.
But much more important than this Bill is the attitude of the coalowners. As regards the assurances which they give affecting the first purchaser and, it may be, the subsidiary undertakings—I think there is some reference in the assurances to these matters—I say that these have not the force of law, and unless the coal-owners are ready to implement their pledges, the assurances are not worth the paper on which they are written. I do not want in any way to suggest that the coalowners are not ready to carry out their pledges, but when a Bill is passing through this House and there is a great

deal of protest and clamour which affects the Mining Association and its constituent elements, it is quite likely that they are ready to make a concession which they are not so anxious to implement when the time for practice comes; and I hope the Government will see to it that the assurances, in so far as they have any value, are rigidly adhered to. But, as I say, more important than the Bill and all its provisions is the attitude of the coalowners themselves. They have the power to revive the industry, if they care. The coalowners, without the provisions of this Bill, could cut out all the dead wood in the industry, and I do not think that even the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) would deny that there is considerable dead wood in the mining industry that ought to be cut out.
Besides, the owners have the power to meet the claims of the men, and here I would stop for a moment to indicate that although in this Bill national considerations have weighed with the Government and there is to be a national ownership of royalties, although there has been co-ordination of mining undertakings, and so on, yet so far as the condition of the men is concerned there is no provision in the Bill. I agree that that is not a matter that we can discuss now, because it is not in the Bill, but it is very significant that it should have been left out. If the coalowners fail in these matters which so vitally concern the industry and which are of such vital concern to the nation, there is only one thing left that this House can do, and that is that there must be more legislation, and the next time it must be more drastic than anything that has ever gone before.
Hon. Members on this side of the House will watch the operations of this new Commission with great interest, some of us with a little anxiety. I say that because of what happened to the previous Commission. The previous Commission never had a fair chance. The coalowners did everything they could to frustrate its efforts. Their actions in many cases were unfair and highly injudicious from the general standpoint of the industry. I hope this new Commission will have a fair chance and that the coalowners will not impede its operations any more than is necessary. I hope that we shall regard this Commission as a


national institution, concerning itself not so much with private interests as with the interests of the nation as a whole. Therefore, while we fear the worst for this Bill, I think I can say for hon. Members on this side that we hope for the best.
It may be asked why it is that in spite of all our criticisms of this Measure we do not divide on the Third Reading, just as we failed to divide on the Second Reading. There is a simple answer. We are primarily concerned with a great body of mine workers, who are a little better off just now, but who may be very badly off two or three years hence. We are, if I may be forgiven this figure of speech, like men clutching at straws. Anything that can be done that is conducive to the best interests of the mine workers, will be acceptable to hon. Members on this side. That is the reason why we do not divide against this Bill, with all its defects, with all its practical difficulties and with all its ineffectiveness in regard to the proper organisation of this great industry. We accept the Bill in the hope that both the Government and the Commission that is to be appointed and the mineowners will try to make the best of it in the interests of the mine workers and the nation as a whole.

5.4 p.m.

Major Sir George Davies: If it requires a considerable amount of temerity for an English Member to intervene in a Scottish Debate, it requires an equal or a greater amount for one to intervene in a coal Debate who has not one penny of interest in the industry, and whose constituency does not produce one pound of coal. But, like many other hon. Members, have listened to or read the reports of the innumerable Debates in the various stages of this Bill and its predecessors on the way to the Statute Book, and it is perhaps not out of place that one who represents the point of view of the man-in-the-street, the ordinary consumer, unorganised, should give what I might call a qualified welcome to the Bill.
Before I develop that side of my remarks there are one or two comments that I should like to make with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). I shuddered, and I am sure other hon. Members shuddered, when he said that this Bill meant that there would in future be more complicated

legislation demanded. That is an awful thought. I have often felt that perhaps the most welcome Measure that could be introduced would be a sort of Continuing Laws Expiry Act. The thought that we are constantly to have additional legislation on these complicated matters causes one to shudder. One of the reasons why the consumer, the man-in-the-street, gives a welcome to this Measure is that he thinks it is an effort, perhaps an overdue effort, to reach some form of finality in an industry which has too long been the shuttlecock of different conflicting points of view.
Another criticism I have to make of the speech of the hon. Member was the line he took on the question of the compensation to the royalty owners. As I understood him, his complaints were threefold. In the first place, he thought that in that transaction the State and the royalty owner, who was voluntarily or involuntarily parting with his royalty rights, were the only two people concerned, and that the mine workers' interests were not being considered. I would remind him that when a man owns a certain piece of property and he sells it to somebody, he and the other person are the only two people concerned in the transaction, and not any outside parties. Finally, his criticism was that the amount of compensation paid was grossly in excess of what should have been paid and that the existing royalty owners when they had been bought out would be able to snap their fingers at the welfare or the illfare of the industry. Whether £66,500,000 or 66,500,000 pence were being paid, the situation would remain just the same, because the royalty owners would no longer have any concern for the royalties paid for the getting of coal, or for the industry itself. Therefore, the hon. Member's argument from that point of view does not really hold water. The way in which the man in the street regards this question of royalties is that it has been very largely a psychological question, a magnified grievance in the industry, and he thinks that this Bill is an attempt, on a fair basis, because an independent arbitration has been called in, to get rid of that difficulty.
There are one or two points to which I should like to draw attention from the same independent attitude with which I view this matter. The first is that in all this long sequence of misunderstandings,


disputes and upheavals in this great industry we find it difficult to know with which side we have the least patience—the mineowners or the mine workers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame!"] I will give reasons for that statement. Whether my reasons be good or not, the fact remains that we feel that we have very little sympathy with either side, because it has always seemed to us that the spokesmen for the owners' side when they have to argue a case always argue it in the worst possible way, and the workers, if they have a good case, seem to approach it in the most intractable and stubborn way, with the result that very little progress has been made towards what we hope will ensue from this Measure, and what was expressed in the closing words of the hon. Member for Seaham.
We outsiders instinctively dislike two things—one is what is called planning or co-ordination, and the other is Socialism. As regards planning or co-ordination, hideous as it is, with the complexities and the development of modern industry and the rapid movement and increase of population something of that sort becomes inevitable. Therefore, we realise that in many industries to-day it is necessary to have a certain amount of what is included in the word "planning." With regard to Socialism——

Mr. A. Bevan: On a point of Order. We on these benches who have been through the Committee stage and the Report stage of the Bill would be exceedingly happy if we were permitted in the course of this Debate to follow the hon. and gallant Member into a dissertation upon the principles of Socialism as applied to coal, but I do not understand that any of those principles are contained in the Bill. Is it, therefore, in order for the hon. and gallant Member to make what is, in fact, a Second Reading speech on the Third Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): When a point of Order is raised, the hon. Member against whom it is directed should have a right to reply.

Sir G. Davies: I am endeavouring to show why I gave a qualified welcome to the Bill. The hon. Member must admit that there is a certain amount of planning

in the Bill, and therefore I am entitled to speak upon it, even though I am only touching slightly on that aspect.

Mr. Bevan: It is only appropriate for the hon. Member to address himself to the precise provisions of the Bill where the planning is indicated, and not to argue upon planning in general.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The rule in regard to Third Reading is quite definite, that hon. Members must not discuss matters which are not in the Bill, but obviously in discussing the general principles of the Bill hon. Members may have reasons to which they desire to give expression as to why they support or oppose it. For the moment I do not think the hon. and gallant Member has gone beyond what is legitimate on those lines.

Sir G. Davies: I do not intend to develop but only to touch upon these particular aspects, which are in fact contained in the Bill. Shudder as we may at the idea of planning, we feel that the measure of it which is implicit in this Bill is inevitable. With regard to the claim which has been made consistently from certain occupants of these benches that this Bill is a measure of Socialism—countered by the hon. Member for Seaham whose complaint was that it was not Socialism—we represent the view which says that we cannot admit that it is really a form of Socialism to have some form of Government assistance or Government control, or aid, or direction in the background, such as has been outlined by the Minister this afternoon. That would be tantamount to saying that if we had, owing to scientific and medical developments, a sewerage system to which every member of the community had to link up, that we had therefore established State Socialism. That is absurd. These things have to be decided by the development of general industrial conditions. For that reason, dislike as we may the development of Government control in industry, we feel that some measure of it, as represented in the Bill, is inevitable, but it needs to be carefully watched.
We outsiders know the peculiar difficulties of this industry. We know that coal is one of the few raw materials that are exported from this country, and that by the very geographical conditions of the industry the mine workers are somewhat thrown into watertight compartments and


that they lead a life rather apart from the rest of the community and get a different angle and outlook on subjects of general interest. This industry, therefore, has suffered because, on the one hand, the mineowners, we feel, think that they are a body whose ability must be unquestioned, and the mine workers, on the other hand have a narrow outlook on the importance of the part they play in the national life which is perhaps not so overwhelming as they sometimes seem to think. We come, then, to the attitude of the consumers. While I said earlier that it is difficult for us to decide with which side we have least patience, we have sympathy with the mine workers' point of view, particularly in one direction, which almost coincides with the point of view of the consumers. We were doubtful until the last-minute Amendment was incorporated in the Bill with regard to the ascertainment of the proper prices that should be charged in the distribution of coal.
One of the difficulties in the industry, as we see it, is this. When we want to find out what were the earnings of the mine workers, anything more complicated than the method of calculation could never have been evolved, and I do not believe that any mine worker or mine-owner has ever been able to give the answer. We have to get a sort of basic figure, add certain things, deduct the number we first thought of and reduce it to sea level, and then no one has any idea what the result is. Yet that is the basis on which the earnings of a large number of industrial workers is calculated. No wonder there have been dissatisfaction and difficulty. After all, these permutations and combinations, the wages of the mine workers depend, as I understand it, very largely on certain a scertainments——

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. How far are we really to be allowed to go in this Debate? Hon. Friends and I have prepared our speeches on the assumption that we are to be confined to discussing the contents of the Bill. Are we to be allowed to discuss the methods of arriving at miners' wages and whether they are high enough or low enough?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must repeat what I said before, that there is nothing in what the hon. and gallant Member is saying which is out of order. With re-

gard to the hon. Member's own chances, there may be instances in which he may develop an argument in more detail, in such a way that I should be obliged to rule that he was out of order. The difficulties or the circumstances which guide hon. Members to have opinions one way or another on the Bill are matters I cannot rule out of order.

Mr. George Griffiths: The hon. and gallant Member has been talking about figures and the method of ascertainment——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not raising a further point of Order, but is apparently disputing my Ruling. He must leave the occupant of the Chair discretion in this matter. It is no use asking what I shall do in the case of other hon. Members. I must wait until they make their speeches.

Sir G. Davies: I did not think I should cause so much disturbance in the minds of hon. Members opposite. What I was endeavouring to do was not to go into details, but to show how ignorant I am and how impossible it is to correct that ignorance on a matter which is vital to the object of this Bill. I was stating the reasons why I am giving it a qualified welcome. One of the difficulties which the Bill seeks to correct is the fact, on which I was only going to touch, that there has for long been a bone of contention with regard to the question whether the prices that are taken into consideration for ascertainment purposes are proper and in the interests of those concerned, both getters and consumers of coal, particularly in connection with ancillary industries connected with the mineowners. We consumers have felt that there is a basis of grievance there and consequently our sympathies go out wholly to the intention of this Measure. It has three outstanding attributes. The first is that it deals fairly and comprehensively with the question of royalties. All that we side-liners would say about that is that this psychological bone of contention is being taken out of the picture, and that will be all to the good. With regard to the question of selling, we hope that, as the result of this Measure, not only will fair prices be available for the consuming public, but the basic figures, on which the ascertainments which so much affect the weekly earnings of the


mine workers are made, will be satisfactory to the workers so that the feeling that they are not having a fair deal will gradually be eliminated.
Then there is the question of amalgamations. Of themselves they do not necessarily achieve anything. There are two kinds of amalgamation—the real efficient business amalgamation, and the financial amalgamation which benefits some promoter but leaves a lot of innocent shareholders carrying the baby and does not result in efficiency or prosperity for anybody. We outsiders hope that the amalgamations which may take place, either voluntarily on account of the Bill, or involuntarily under the Bill, may be of the first and not of the second kind, and that we may find gradually come about, what I would put of the first importance, an elimination of that friction which has too often made itself felt in the coal industry between the workers and owners; and that we may find, with less conflict at home and with a greater recovery of markets abroad, that peace, contentment and prosperity may gradually come to this vexed industry. Then the whole community, and not least the outsider whom I am venturing now to represent, will benefit in the long run.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Batey: The hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Sir G. Davies) does not seem to have a very high opinion of the coalowner nor a great deal of patience with the mining classes. One can leave the coalowners to be looked after by their representatives. With regard to the mining classes, let me say that the long history of mining is, a black history of poverty and misery for them. They have been looking to the House of Commons to better their conditions, but they have been sadly neglected. In this Bill we do not see much which will help them. The Secretary for Mines seemed to be having a good time this afternoon when he was moving the Third Reading. I rather enjoy seeing him having a good time, but I cannot agree that the Bill justifies his feeling that it is a first-class Measure. I am surprised that it has ever come forward. Last year, when the Government announced that they intended to bring it forward, I did what I do not make a habit of doing, and bet with one of my fellow-Members half-a-crown that

the Government would not bring it forward. I lost, but I paid.
I was surprised when the Government brought the Bill forward. I did not feel that they were sincere enough about mining legislation to do so. Now that they have brought it forward, it means very little. We who are interested only in the mining classes and want their conditions bettered, see nothing in the Bill that will improve them. I do not agree with the Secretary for Mines that the three parts of the Bill depend upon each other. If the Government had wanted these three important questions thoroughly debated they should have brought forward three separate Bills. Instead of that they have linked them together in one Bill, and we have either to accept all three or none. I regard one part of the Bill good and two parts as bad, but in order to get the part that is good we have to agree to the whole Bill. The part which I regard as good and to which there has been a good deal of opposition is the continuation of the selling schemes until 1942. The only weakness about it is the time limit. There should have been no limit to the selling schemes, because the only hope for the mining classes is in those schemes, with all their imperfections. Another part of the Bill deals with buying out the royalty owners, and a third part with compulsory amalgamation. I regard these two proposals as bad parts of the Bill.
The only part of the Bill with which one has any patience or any hope for is the part that deals with selling schemes. All my mining life I have been deadly opposed to the royalty owners, because I can never see why they should have the right to take a levy from the coal. I could never see that they had put the coal there or done anything in regard to the coal, and I always regarded them as absolute robbers, robbing the miners of money which would have been far better spent if it had gone to feed the miners, their wives and bairns. For long years members of the Labour party have advocated the nationalisation of royalties, but we have never advocated paying £66,500,000 to the royalty owners. The royalty owners ought to consider themselves jolly lucky to have got off without paying money back, apart from getting —66,500,000.
Sometimes one tries to find a reason for the introduction of a Bill, and if I


were to look behind this Bill to see the reason for it I should say the position was this: The Cabinet said to themselves, "Things are not going too well with us, a General Election will come one of these days and we may go down, and we should like to see our friends looked after beforehand." That is the only reason for the introduction of this Bill. When the going is good the Government want to look after their friends. I am certain that if Labour had been in office and had had to bring forward a Bill, they would not have dared to suggest paying £66,500,000 to the royalty owners. We did some silly things, some extremely stupid things, when we were in office, but if Labour were in office again they would not dare to pay the royalty owners £66,500,000, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners can get upon their knees and thank God that they are getting this money now. An hon. Member remarks that they might have got more under a Labour Government. No; in my opinion this was the last chance. It is that which makes me believe that the House of Lords will pass the Bill.

Mr. Holdsworth: Then why not throw it out here?

Mr. Batey: Oh, no. Shocking as it may be to pay that money to the royalty owners, I would allow the Bill to pass for the sake of the selling schemes. I want our men to have better wages. I do not want the starvation and misery endured in our colliery villages in the past to continue. It is because I believe that it is possible to abolish part, at least, of that poverty that I am prepared to leave the other parts of the Bill to go through, though in my opinion the royalty owners are being dealt with far too handsomely. They are not entitled to £66,500,000. I was about to say when I was interrupted that some of my hon. Friends believe that the House of Lords will throw out the Bill. I do not think so. They will see that their friends the royalty owners, who belong to the same class as themselves, get hold of that £66,500,000. I do not believe that the miners will get any relief from the buying out of the royalty owners. We on this side wanted to see royalty owners abolished in order that the money paid in royalty rents might go to help miners' wages, but I see no prospects of relief in that respect for the next 20 years. The Commission

has not merely to find £66,500,000. It has to raise a loan of £76,500,000. In addition to the cost of the royalties there are the costs of the Commission to be paid—the expense of rates and taxes, of all the people they will employ, and of making provision for pensions and gratuities. Then there are all the costs of litigation, and of the valuation boards, and other things. The Commission will not be able to reduce royalty rents in a few years' time. During the Report stage the Minister commented on my absence because of my golden wedding. I shall have time to have another golden wedding before we see any reduction in royalty rents.
Coming to the question of amalgamations, I can only say that I hate amalgamations, whether compulsory or voluntary. I am afraid that if compulsory amalgamations take place small collieries on which we in the south-west part of Durham depend so much will be closed. Unless people live in a colliery village they have no idea of how much it means to such a village to have even one small pit working, and I do not want to see any pits closed; but I have this consolation, that in spite of the Clauses in the Bill dealing with compulsory amalgamations we need have no fear of compulsory amalgamations during the next 50 years. The coalowners objected to amalgamations, and the Government said: "We are not always going to give in to you, we must stand up against you sometimes," and so they inserted Clauses providing for compulsory amalgamations. But the Commission can only act under them if:
the number of separate undertakings is detrimental to the economical and efficient working of the industry.
That is the hurdle which has to be got over, and they will never get over it. But even if they do get over that hurdle, their recommendation will have to go to the Board of Trade, which will pass it on to the House of Commons in the form of a Provisional Order. And that will end the matter. No Provisional Order will get through this House dealing with amalgamations. So as one opposed to compulsory amalgamations I am contenting myself with the reflection that the words in the Bill mean nothing, and that I need not be afraid. I can sleep to-night. We shall never see any compulsory amalgamations in my time.
Next I have a word to say on the selling schemes. They are the only hope for the miners under this Bill. Already we have seen wages rising because of the selling schemes. I admit that the coalowners may be able to make more profits, and that the Government do not attempt to deal with the coalowners' profits. There has been a lot of objection to the selling schemes, on the ground that they have increased the price of coal. Some of those who have been complaining ought to feel ashamed of doing so—the electrical undertakings, the gas undertakings and other big industrial undertakings, yes, and corporations, too. Last year a statement was sent to me which I could not believe to be true, and because I could not believe it I passed it on to the Secretary for Mines and asked whether it really was correct. The statement was that a certain industrial undertaking was complaining to the investigation committee that there had been a rise in the price of coal, the original price having been 3s. a ton. I could not believe that any industrial undertaking could be supplied with coal at 3s. a ton. There is a strong case for increasing the price of coal to industrial, gas and electricity undertakings.
The only people who have my sympathy in regard to increased prices are householders, and nothing has been done for them. When one thinks of the pit-head price in Durham and sees coal-carts going about London offering coal at 57s. and 58s. a ton, one feels that it is a disgraceful state of affairs. And there is no need for it. We ought to aim at cheapening the price of domestic coal and increasing the price to the big industrial undertakings. I have no objection to an inquiry if it will investigate prices for coal all the way from the pit-head into the cellar, in order that we may see who is getting a profit because I believe that in London and other big industrial cities it is the coal merchants who are getting huge. profits out of the coal, although miners have been suffering and starving. Believing that the selling schemes will help miners' wages, and for no other reason, I am prepared to lay aside my opposition to the compulsory amalgamation of collieries and even to allow the £66,500,000 to go to the enemies of the miners, the royalty owners.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Peake: We have had long and I hope I may describe them as reasonably amiable discussions upon this Bill, and if in the course of 14 or 15 days in Committee and three more days on Report we have not succeeded in reconciling all our differences, I think we can yet all join in congratulating the President of the Board of Trade and his hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines on having reached the concluding stage of this Bill, at any rate in this House. It is possible, after these long discussions, for anyone to express himself very briefly on the Third Reading, and the observations which I shall make will be of that nature. As to Part I of the Bill, it has been recognised for the last 20 years, at any rate, that the system of private mineral ownership, beneficial as it was in the early days of the coal industry, has become an obstacle to the adoption of the most modern mining methods and has been an obstacle in the way of the industry proceeding as fast as it might with its own internal reorganisation. I therefore welcome the unification of mining royalties in the hands of the Coal Commission. This great question has been examined by many Governments since the War and many Governments have recoiled from the practical difficulties of carrying out this vast change. I think it is true to say that probably no Government except one of the character of the present Government could have carried through Parliament a change of this kind and this magnitude with such a large measure of agreement in all quarters of the House upon the main principles of mineral unification.
With regard to Part II, the Secretary for Mines was good enough to refer to my personal position in this matter of amalgamation, and he suggested in his opening speech that I had been concerned with amalgamations since 1930. In that respect I am afraid that my dossier in the Mines Department requires correction, because I have not been concerned with any amalgamation schemes since 1930. I have since then examined with an open mind a great many amalgamation schemes with a view to going into them if I could see any practical advantage, but I have turned down every amalgamation scheme which I have considered since 1930. The hon. Member for Hemsworth


(Mr. G. Griffiths), whom I am glad to see in his place, did me some injustice on this question during the Committee stage of the Bill. He referred to a colliery which had been amalgamated with an undertaking of mine in 1924 and which, most unfortunately, some five or six years later, had to be closed down owing to economic conditions. The hon. Member rather suggested that the colliery was closed down as a result of the amalgamation, but I can assure him that that was not the case and that it was only the amalgamation which enabled that particular colliery to continue in production a s long as it did. I am glad to have an opportunity during the concluding stages of the Bill to correct him on that point, and I hope he will recognise that in doing so I am not making any reflection upon the views which I am sure he put forward with sincerity on the Committee stage.
We have made great alterations in Part II during the Report stage of the Bill in regard to compulsory amalgamation. Those changes have very largely removed the hostility which the coal-owners have always expressed towards compulsory amalgamation. Indeed, I think I may go so far as to say that if the Bill as originally drafted had conformed to the view put forward by the President of the Board of Trade in his Second Reading speech, when he said that the question of national interest as concerned in these amalgamation schemes would be decided by Parliament and judged by Parliament, a great deal of breath and of ink and paper, and perhaps a certain amount of money spent on advertisements, might have been saved. At any rate, as the Bill stands now, the coalowners and any other objectors to a compulsory amalgamation scheme are assured of an impartial tribunal before which they may put their objections; at least, it will be as impartial as hon. Members can make themselves when they sit upon Select Committees. In my opinion, hon. Members of all parties attain a very high degree of impartiality when they sit upon such committees.
We must recognise that the situation in regard to compulsory amalgamation is different from what it was in 1930. Under the protection of the Coal Mines Act the industry is given a considerable

price of coal, and the public may fairly demand in exchange for that measure of protection some reasonable guarantees of efficiency from the industry itself. Provided that schemes can be properly examined and judged upon by an impartial body, I welcome rather than otherwise this power in the Commission, because it will be no longer possible, when those powers are in existence, for so much ignorant criticism to be made that the coal industry is inefficient and ought to go in for amalgamation on a much wider scale. In future, if desirable amalgamations are not brought about, it will not be the fault of the coalowners but of the Commission or of the Select Committee which has turned out the scheme.
Great anxiety has been expressed in the House as to proper safeguards for the consumer under Part III of the Bill. I have examined these selling schemes very closely, and my anxieties are not so much on behalf of the consumer as that the schemes themselves might not prove to be able to withstand a falling off in the demand for coal. The schemes have been operating hitherto upon a rising market. Last year in this country 33,000,000 more tons of coal were produced than in 1933. The market has been expanding very rapidly and the demand for coal from all quarters, even in the export market, has been continuous. In those circumstances a rise in the price of coal was bound to come about. The schemes, so far as I have seen them, operate almost entirely, if not solely, upon a district basis. If we get a falling off, particularly in the export trade, and we get the exporting districts anxious to secure markets for their coal at home, I do not think that the co-ordination existing to-day is sufficient to prevent those great natural forces operating and bringing about a fairly rapid set-back in the level of coal prices.
My real anxiety about the selling schemes is that if there is a falling off in trade they will not withstand the falling demand. If there is one thing more certain than another it is that the coal trade will not continue to expand indefinitely in the future at the pace at which it has been expanding in the last four years. Until we get some national organisation to deal with the export position we shall not have secured our-


selves against the results of a falling off in the export trade, and it seems that the most vital thing for the industry to do while trade is reasonably good is to secure a national organisation dealing with this question of maintaining, and if possible of increasing, our share in the world export market.
The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) told us that there was nothing in the Bill for the miner. It is true that what has taken place has not all happened under the Bill. It has happened under the statutory selling schemes which were brought about by the Act of 1930 and the central selling arrangements which came into force 18 months ago. But it is worth noticing that the earnings in the industry last year for every man and boy employed were £144 per head against the figure of £109 for the year 1931. In the level of miners' earnings we have made a very big advance in the last two or three years. There is no doubt that the conditions are better than they have been for very many years past.

Mr. T. Williams: Would the hon. Gentleman give the average number of days worked for 1931 and 1937?

Mr. Peake: I am afraid that I have not those figures with me. The increase in the annual earnings is the result of two factors, the increase in wages per shift, and the increase in days worked per annum. We have achieved this very substantial measure of advance, and other improvements are taking place at the present time. Holidays with pay are either agreed upon, or are in process of being negotiated in every coalfield in the country. They will be followed, I hope, by superannuation schemes. Those great advances have been made possible by organised coal marketing. If the Bill does nothing further than to maintain the advances which have been gained, it will not have been a waste of effort on the part of those who have conducted it through this House.

5.58 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: The Minister said that this was the fifteenth or sixteenth day we have had on the Bill, and I should think that the opinions held by hon. Members are more or less known by now. Outside the House the Bill will be criticised

very much more for what is not in it than for what is in it. The Bill certainly leads people to expect that those in the industry are to get great benefit from it, but I am afraid that there will be great disappointment for many people as to what the benefit will be for the miners in part and for the industry as a whole. The Bill is in three parts, and the first deals with the unification of royalties. As I said on the Second Reading, the proposal is called unification largely because the Government wanted to get away from the word "nationalisation" which they thought would not be very popular with their own side. In my opinion, a better word in many ways would perhaps have been "confiscation," to describe the way in which the Government have dealt with this royalty question. In many cases it will act in that way. There is no doubt that a great many hard cases will occur in connection with this Measure, whatever may be the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and a lot of people will undoubtedly lose money which they quite genuinely and legally invested in royalties. I am not speaking of individuals, but of companies who, quite legally, have bought property of this kind, which is now going to be taken from them at a figure which is not its proper value, but a value at which certainly every Member in this House would like to buy some other Member's shares. To buy for £66,000,000 something which will bring in £5,000,000 a year——

Mr. Stanley: Could the hon. Gentleman tell me—probably he knows more about it than I do—the average number of years which royalty owners themselves declare for probate when their investments are being valued?

Sir H. Seely: The figure given for probate is certainly much lower—I think about nine years; but here is something from which the country, it is admitted, is going to receive £5,000,000 a year, and for which it is paying a capital value of £66,000,000. As I say, I should like to buy any shares held by any Member of the House on that basis. Moreover, this will undoubtedly be remembered when the turn comes in politics and another party comes into power. If they wish to take over other interests, they will be able to do it, and no one on the other


side of the House will be able to grumble if it is done in a similar way to this.
After the royalty owners have, as I have said before, gone jingling away with what they have got, what is going to happen to the money which now belongs to the State? I think there is going to be a great deal of feeling on this, having regard to the fights that we had all through the Committee stage on the question how the surplus which the Commission will have was to be divided. Under the Bill as it stands—I think it is in Clause 21—it can only be used for the reduction of rents in certain cases; no other use can be made of the money. I wish, as I think everyone must wish, that that provision could have been broadened so as to give some other benefits to the industry, rather than merely leaving it on a royalty basis as it is now.
Parts II and III must be taken in conjunction and I agree with the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) that the present is a difficult moment at which to judge the selling schemes. Since 1930, we have undoubtedly had far better trade, but I do not believe, and I defy anyone at the Ministry, or any coalowner in any district, to state that these schemes, under which, undoubtedly, profits are now being made, will stand up to bad trade. I do not believe they will. I believe that when there is a recession in the coal trade—and even now the shadow of it can be seen—these schemes will not be worked for keeping up prices, which is so essential for the maintenance of proper wages in the industry. That is why I believe in amalgamation. While the Coal Mines Reorganisation Committee was sitting, it failed to get through forced amalgamations, and I regret that during the passage of this Bill we have weakened its power for compulsory amalgamation.
Like the hon. Member for North Leeds, I went in for amalgamation, and I am certain that in my district you are not going to get voluntary amalgamations; any amalgamation will have to be forced amalgamation. I am not at all certain whether voluntary amalgamations are right. In fact, in many cases they are not good for the interests of other pits round about. You get an amalgamation which is not based purely on the interests of the coal trade, but on the interests of two or three separate companies in the district. I do not believe that, if amal-

gamations are essential, as I believe they are, in order to support these selling schemes, voluntary amalgamations should be allowed at all, but that the whole industry should be organised so that there are proper amalgamations for the industry in the interests of each of the districts. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Sir G. Ellis) differs from me on the subject of amalgamation. It is all very well to be dogmatic on it, and to think that it is interference with trade, but in an industry of which such an enormous proportion as 85 per cent. is represented by wages, and which employs such a large number of men, it is not right to allow conditions to arise such as those which arose between 1926 and 1928. I am certain my hon. Friend would agree that, if we see that such conditions are likely to arise again, we have to do something to prevent it, because otherwise we shall go back to what was virtually starvation, and which led to the development of the biggest blot on this country to-day, namely, the distressed areas.
Part III of the Bill deals with the question of the consumer. A great deal has been said in this House about the consumers, and how they should be better protected. Of course, everyone is a consumer, and the consumer can often get a great deal of support in this House. But the biggest consumers on whom we have to rely in the coal trade are our own competitors, like the electricity and gas industries and so on. It is rather difficult for us to look on them as consumers in the same way in which one would look on a consumer if one had to make boots or some simple object like that. As has been already mentioned, the question of domestic coal is one where the real consumer arises, because he is the person who is paying a great deal more for his coal under the present system than is received in wages and in the running of the industry. If one looks at the price of industrial coal and the cost of producing it, one sees that the figures are often more or less reasonable, but domestic coal is a different question.
As regards domestic coal, the safeguard for the consumer in the future depends, to my mind, not on the Ministry, but on whether it is possible to link together the continuation of Part I of the Act of 1930 with amalgamation, and on whether it is


possible to give such a feeling of security in the trade that you do not get the conditions which obtain now, when many people think they may as well make money while the going is good. Undoubtedly a certain amount of that is going on. The price of house coal is too high. It has been possible by these schemes to put up the prices of industrial coal, but the price of house coal has not come down, because the people in the trade do not really trust the scheme enough to allow a cut to be made when they see a rise in the price of industrial coal. I believe that only when you can get a complete feeling of security in the industry, with schemes that will stand both good and bad times, will it be possible for people to buy coal at a proper rate and to pay properly those who produce it. We have discussed this Bill for 15 days, and it is now going to another place. I am afraid it will not come back any better than it is going. It will then become law. I do not believe it will be the last Bill on this subject. I hope the Ministry will not take that view, but that, if there are any shortcomings in bringing about really good reorganisation in the coal trade, they will not hesitate to come to the House again with another Bill.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: As the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) has said, this Bill has been before the House for a considerable number of days, and we have had ample opportunity of examining it in all its aspects. We have to thank the Government for that full opportunity; they have never put any restrictions upon us, but have given us all the opportunities that they could. I want briefly to express a few opinions on different parts of the Bill, and I am going to deal with them in the opposite order to that in which they stand. The Secretary for Mines stated that they all ran together, but I do not agree with him on that. I can see the idea that the Government have in trying to get out of a difficult situation by forcing the Opposition into acceptance of the Bill as a whole in order to get some of the points which are contained in it. One of those points is with reference to the selling schemes. I am whole-heartedly in favour of the selling schemes at the present time, though not on principle, because, if I had my way, there would be public owner-

ship, and we should have done away with that kind of thing. But, being driven into the present position by force of circumstances, one can see the wisdom of adopting it at the present time. I want to say why I support it, and why I criticise many of the complaints which are made against it from the opposite side of the House.
The selling schemes came into operation because of what was happening prior to 1930. It was quite a common thing then to cut down prices in such a way as to make it impossible for the miner to get a living wage. I was a member of the St. Helens Gas Committee, and I remember that the object always was to get the lowest tender, regardless of the position of the men who had to get their living in the industry. I was on that public body representing the citizens, and I was on the other side as a miners' agent, knowing that the acceptance of the lowest tender meant slightly lowering the rates received by the men. I also knew that in a mining district it was inevitable that it would mean cutting down the wages of the mineworkers, and I had to argue, and did argue, on the Gas Committee that this kind of thing was not fair, because the people whose wages were being cut down had to spend their money in the same town, and therefore the whole thing was altogether wrong. I have spoken many times with big consumers of coal, and they have argued that it was not right that the miners should have only the low wages that they were getting. When I pointed out to them the reason, they said, "We certainly take the lowest price, but how can we stop it?"
That was going on, and some effort had to be made to prevent it. Therefore, the selling schemes were brought in 1931. But for this Measure they would have expired in December, 1937. Now the whole question of reorganisation is dealt with in the Bill, and that is why I say that the Government have brought it forward as part of the Bill so that they can get the support of the Opposition for it. I say to the coalowners with regard to this matter that they have an exceptional privilege at the present time. They are sharing in a gilt-edged security, and anyone who follows the papers at the present time will realise the tremendously wealthy position in which they are. One cannot see how to stop it; but I warn the


coalowners that they should treat this privilege that they have with the gravest concern, and not exploit either the mine worker or the consumer. They must try to realise that Parliament has given them a great weapon, but that the miners must have a decent wage and that they must also pay regard to the coal-consuming public. When they have to put prices up, they should not be afraid to meet the consuming public and let them know why the price has to go up, and try to get their confidence. Also, they should not go on trying to get enormous dividends, which create in the minds of the public a feeling that the thing is not fair.
I would draw the attention of the coal-owners to a speech made last week by Sir Malcolm Stewart, which was criticising them for making enormous profits and bringing up the price of coal. He was criticising them; but I am going to criticise him, because I noticed that in his balance sheet he was doing very well out of somebody; and I thought it was a case of the devil calling the other devil something. I mention it, however, to show the coalowners what may be said about them. I want the selling schemes to operate until the time comes when we can get nationalisation of the mines, and that is why I am warning the coalowners not to alienate public sympathy.
Now I come to what is called amalgamation. I agree with the Miners' Federation and my colleague the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) that amalgamation is sometimes necessary. Also, I quite agree with the view of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), who had in mind the closing down of small collieries. That is very hard when it happens, but the general trend of wages is being brought down because of small collieries not being able to pay what they ought to pay to the men engaged in them. When we meet them they say, "If you insist on everything in the price list this colliery has to close down." They are isolated cases. In the amalgamations which I agree must go on in some cases, we must leave those who control them to have due regard to the circumstances. I want them, before they amalgamate, to examine the whole position, and see whether it will mean closing down some of the collieries recklessly. They must consider that, because unless careful examination is given to that problem, you do to a certain extent

create derelict areas. In the examination of this point, I want some regard to be given, before you have an amalgamation, to the question whether it will mean throwing a vast number of men out of work in the area.
In regard to the unification of mining royalties, here again there is some difference of opinion between hon. Members on this side. I take a long view on this matter. Too often have we been termed the confiscatory party—that means to say, that, regardless of the rights of people, we would take their property away without paying. That is why I am in favour of payment for royalties. In some cases people have acquired royalty rights, not in the sixteenth or seventeenth century for doing something for the Monarch of that time, but by buying land genuinely and honestly since that time, just as I might buy a house under which coal exists. It is not for me to say, "It happens to be in the land, and, therefore, you have no right to have money for it." But I think that one of the things that we ought to provide, during the passage of this Bill, is that, out of the money which is being paid over, some might be set apart for a pension fund for miners. It is well known, owing to the arduous and difficult occupation of the miners that they do not last so long as workers in some other industries, and, therefore, I think that a certain amount of the money might be given for that purpose. There is a Commission set up to deal with this question of the unification of royalties. Clause 2 refers to the functions of the Commission:
under this Part of this Act in relation to matters appearing to the board to affect the national interest, including all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal.
Here again, I come to the theme which I have argued many times in this House, that I want the Commission to see that protection is given underground as much as possible. I want to press forward before the final passage of the Bill that this Commission ought to have regard to the surface of the ground. The national interests demand that. The mine workers demand that. Here we have a grand opportunity to deal with it. The mineowners never have had regard to the national interests. They say, "So long as we have regard to the safety of the workers, what concern is it of ours if the


ground sinks afterwards?" The Secretary for Mines can enforce that upon the mineowners, if I interpret rightly the statement he made last week. I hope that before this Bill gets on the Statute Book we might, by some means, have that put in definitely. If this can be done, I shall be very pleased at the passage of the Bill. In any case, we are going to agree to it tonight. We believe that there are certain things in it which will be to the benefit of the mine workers, and because of that, we shall not oppose the Third Reading.

6.26 p.m.

Sir Reginald Clarry: I propose to confine my remarks to Part III of the Bill. But, first, I should like to make some observations on the speech of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), who made no secret of his very definite view on each of the three Parts of the Bill. I do not think he was quite fair in his criticisms of the objections which have been put forward to the Bill, both inside and outside this House, by consumers. They do not object necessarily to paying more for their coal; but they object to seeing no limit placed on how much they are to pay, and nothing being done to prevent their being exploited in the presence by this statutory monopoly which is being given to the owners under the coal-selling schemes. They are merely protecting their interests, and not necessarily opposing the increase of the price of coal. I would refer the hon. Member to what happened in 1936, when a large number of consumers voluntarily paid the extra 1s. asked for to meet the extra cost of wages. Prior to the Bill coming into the House, and during its passage, a large number of Members had been very much concerned about the effect of this monopoly, not only on industrial consumers, but on domestic consumers, and on the cost of living. Considerable apprehension has also been felt throughout the country, irrespective of areas, and that apprehension has not been considerably allayed. But I am glad to note that, while the position of the consumers in the early stages of the Bill was practically hopeless from a legal point of view, it has been very materially relieved during the passage of the Bill. Although there is still a great deal to be desired, I should be churlish if I did not

refer to some of the concessions which have been made, and express thanks for the relief which has been given, such as it is.
We are thankful to the Prime Minister for agreeing to institute an inquiry, although it deals only with the distributing half of the coal problem. As far as the consumer is concerned, there still remain the operations of the coal selling schemes. We must appreciate the assurances of the Mining Association, extracted from them by the Secretary for Mines and the President of the Board of Trade, and we are very glad that they will be given legal form. We did not regard them as being of very great value until they were given legal form. There are many Amendments in the Schedule, all to the good except that in regard to the duties of the chairman, which have been altered to giving a casting vote instead of having autocratic power. We feel that the Government's first thoughts on this were the best; because it will be very often the case that there will be a stalemate, and it will be necessary for the chairman to take matters into his own hands and give an arbitrary vote. In spite of all this, we still regard regulation as being better than investigation afterwards. I know that it is too late to effect anything at the present time, but as consumers—and everybody in this country is a consumer, directly or indirectly—we should have a much better status if we knew where we stood beforehand and had machinery to remove difficulties when we had cause for complaint.
The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) made comment upon the speech of Sir Malcolm Stewart. I read that speech very carefully and, in trying to look at it from an unbiased point of view, I felt that it was an uncalled-for attack upon the coal industry, and unnecessarily bitter. He enunciated a theory for the coal industry which would find general support as a theory, but he entirely ignored—and he knows considerably better than that because he went deeply into these matters when he was Commissioner—the fact that it is quite impracticable to put into force the theory which he enunciated. I agree with him on the question of supply and demand. It has been said in the Press, upon platforms, and in this House from the Front Bench, that the present increase of prices of coal to consumers, ranging from 3s. to 8s. a


ton, is due to supply and demand. As I have said before in this House, I cannot accept that contention. It is not due to supply and demand, for the very simple reason that there is no free market. The ordinary laws of supply and demand prescribe a free demand and a free supply, yet here we have an absolutely watertight supply preventing competition, with prices arbitarily fixed, and it would be possible to reduce production. Therefore there can be no question of supply and demand. It is only a psychological demand, but we must get away from the statement that the present increase of prices is due to supply and demand. It cannot be so while the artificial conditions of to-day are apparent.
On the Committee stage I made a comparison in prices, by way of comment, between the official figures of the statistical summary and the actual prices which were being paid by consumers. I drew a comparison between the year 1936 and the last quarter for which figures were out—September, 1937. It must be borne in mind that in 1936 there was already a voluntary shilling on the price of coal. In comparing the proceeds of the year 1936 with September, 1937, there was an increase of 1s. 3d. The figures which came out a few days ago improved on that figure to the extent of 2s. There is now a 2s. advance in the proceeds between December, 1937, and the year 1936. There is still a large discrepancy between the official figures of the price of coal at the pithead and the price which the consumer has to pay. I am prepared to accept the fact that that difference is largely made up by long-period contracts which are still running at lower prices. In a year's time there should not be that lag. The official prices should be approximately the increase of prices which consumers are actually having to pay.
Out of that increase of 2s. in the price of coal, the miners are receiving in wages an additional 10d. per ton, the credits have increased by 6¾d. and stores costs have increased by 7⅓ of a penny. I should like the opportunity to say something more, perhaps in a year's time if I am still here and the subject should arise, on the discrepancy concerning prices, because I am not entirely satisfied with the official figures and the actual prices. In the absence of an inquiry into the operations of the selling scheme, which the Prime Minister specially ruled out when

granting that other inquiry, we ought to have for the protection of the country—I am not speaking specifically for consumers now—some form of permanent advisory board to watch the interests of the whole country in the operations of the scheme, and particularly in its effect upon the cost of living.

Mr. T. Williams: Would the hon. Gentleman apply that to coke as well as to coal?

Sir R. Clarry: Certainly.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And to gas?

Sir R. Clarry: That is regulated by statute. This may have ultimately a very adverse effect upon the cost of living if a halt is not called in the increase of the cost of coal to the consumer. I hope that the coal industry, both the owners and the mineworkers, will remember that the Government are giving them a very great benefit indeed in providing them with a statutory monopoly for the selling of their product. It is a concession which should be handled with very great caution and with due regard to the interests of the country. I would have preferred, in the absence of the appointment of a permanent advisory statutory board to watch events, that the period for this great privilege should be made from year to year, and that it should not be for a period of five years without any question of renewal. I would call to mind the professed good intentions of the mineworkers and the owners that they have no desire to abuse the privileges which they enjoy or to exploit the public.

Mr. Bevan: The mineworkers have no control over this matter.

Sir R. Clarry: The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who spoke on the Committee stage, said that the last thing they wanted was that the consumers should be exploited. The consumers and the country generally will watch the operation of these schemes with very great interest. I sincerely hope, and I believe that it would be the wish of those who have been loudest in their criticism of the Bill, particularly from the selling side, that there will be a smooth working of the scheme and that all concerned will settle down to business on really sound lines. The resumption of happy relations which I hope will be the effect of this


Bill, and which are so essential between employer and employed, and also between buyer and seller, is as necessary in the coal industry as in any other industry for the national good will.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: Several of the speakers taking part in this Debate have expressed the hope that this is the last Coal Mines Bill we shall see for some time. I do not share that hope, and I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for Mines can share that hope, because he has shortly to introduce a Bill which may be as long and complicated, and as important as the present Measure. The Committee that has been charged by the Government with the task of investigating the necessity and desirability of changes in the Coal Mines Regulation Act, dealing with the safety of the mines, is now preparing its report, and we shall look forward to a Bill being introduced shortly, because this Bill does not contain a great deal for the benefit of the men. We hope that there will be something for the protection of their lives in the next Bill, though there is very little to protect their livelihood in this Bill.
The hon. Member for Newport (Sir R. Clarry) devoted himself entirely to the question of coal-selling schemes. These schemes can be properly appreciated only if we put them in the setting in which they originated. From 1921 until 1930 we were confronted in the industry with a position in which the potential output of the industry far exceeded the demand. The demand in the country declined, and the export trade was halved in about two years, with the result that we had in the mining industry a potential output far in excess of the demand for coal. There ensued a mad scramble for these declining markets. It went on for 10 years. There was competition between pit and pit, between district and district and, in the export trade, between country and country. The prices of coal were depressed almost continuously during those 10 years, and the result was that the consequences of all this competition came back upon the miners, whose wages were depressed. It was only through the action of the Labour Government at that time that an Act was passed imposing a measure of control upon the owners in the mining industry.
Almost every Measure beneficial to the mining industry in the last 20 years has arisen through the demands of the men and not of the coalowners. If the coalowners had had their way, there would be no coal-selling schemes or reorganisation of the industry or any measure of any kind. A beginning was made with the coal-selling schemes in 1930 because the miners demanded a reduction in the working day, and the owners were given the coal-selling schemes as a kind of quid pro quo. In 1936 there was a revision in the method of the coal-selling schemes, which again was a quid pro quo. for the increase in wages which the miners received. The town which the hon. Member for Newport represents is vitally interested in the coal industry. It has been built up upon it, and if the mining industry should collapse, there would be no Newport for the hon. Member to represent in this House. The mining industry has been saved from the ruin which was rapidly overtaking it by organised coal selling.
In continuing Part III of the 1930 Act, it is essential that the organisation shall be kept intact. It gives to the mine-owners of this country enormous powers to create a monopoly and to charge monopoly prices which nobody ought to have without public supervision. I do not ask for powers for the mining industry without supervision. I welcome the suggestion that there should be an inquiry. I want supervision. I do not want the coalowner to have a monopoly. A great deal of the difficulty in the mining industry in the years immediately following the War was due in no small measure to the senseless way in which coal was sold. There was no kind of organisation. I have satisfied myself that some of the complaints made during the Debate are true and if they continue will break down these schemes.
I want to make a suggestion through the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) to the coalowners, that as they could not do this thing themselves, as they could not organise selling schemes in the industry—there were too many blackmailers in it—that now they have been given these powers they should have due regard to their public responsibilities in the prices they charge, and, what is more important, should see that there is absolutely no reason now for


complaints as to the cleanly condition in which coal is delivered. They have all the labour and machinery available, and I hope that no complaints as to prices or quality will be made. The coal-mining industry could, of course, do without these schemes. I do not believe that the present high prices of coal are due to these schemes. There would have been a substantial increase in prices without any schemes and, therefore, they are not of grave moment. The real testing time will come when the industry meets a period of depression, when there is a decline in our rearmament programme. When that comes there will be tremendous repercussions. The Advisory Committee on Unemployment has referred to it in a new phrase; they call it "structural unemployment," which is due to a sudden or slow withdrawal of a large amount of capital and labour from these armaments industries. Then will come the testing time, and my first concern is whether these schemes are sufficiently foolproof, are sufficiently well organised to stand that test.
I believe that the willingness of the people of this country in a period of depression to maintain a fair level of prices for coal will depend in no small measure on the way in which the coal-owners use these powers. I support any measure which will secure public approval. The coalowners have now these selling schemes, and having got these tremendous powers is it too much to ask the owners to come together and pool their national interests and do something substantial as an industry to assist the export trade? In 1930 a levy on inland coal to help the export coal was turned down. Every suggestion of that kind has been ruled out, and what is happening now is that we are developing two sides of the industry, the rich sister and Cinderella. The inland trade is completely protected by the quota scheme, but there is at this moment an intense competition among coalowners to get into the inland market, which is the best market. This competition will be intensified when the export trade falls again and, therefore, I urge the President of the Board of Trade that as the Government are giving the owners these great new powers he should on behalf of the nation tell them that they should develop a sufficient social conscience and build up a system to help the export trade,

which will ensure that the miners who produce the coal and contribute to the national welfare shall be treated on something like equitable terms.
I hope the President of the Board of Trade will go to the owners and ask them to use the powers they have been given to get some kind of national organisation. The hon. Member for North Leeds has used some such words before, and I hope notice will be taken of them by the coalowners. Unless something is done now in these comparatively better days to handle the problem of the export trade, when we get another slump or some international difficulty and the export trade is cut off over-night, as it may be, and comes into the inland market, all these schemes will go to pieces.
Let me say one word on the problem of amalgamation. I have seen the ownership of the mining industry change during my own lifetime. In my boyhood days we had the old semi-feudal system of the personal owner, the individual who owned a single pit. He lived in the village and was not only the owner but in many cases the manager of the pit as well. He shared to some degree the life of the men in the pit. There was a close personal relationship, and you can realise this by many of the names which even now attach to pits. It still persits in the names of the villages. How many villages in South Wales have been named after the owner of the pit? How many pits are even called to-day Norths, Lewis Merthyr, Nixon, and Markham? That is the old kind of personal ownership. We had a way of settling disputes with that kind of individual owner. If we could not settle with the manager we sent a deputation to see the owner, and if he was obdurate we sent a brass band to play outside his house, and that generally settled the dispute. We are now developing in the mining industry an absentee ownership, an ownership by financiers, by banks, by people far away.
The actual people who manage the pits to-day are the technicians, working men, and ownership now does not mean anything except sitting in an office in London and drawing dividends. That is what amalgamation means. When we begin to amalgamate in the coal-mining industry we get an ownership of that kind. Can you get amalgamation without bringing in the banks, or a firm of


financiers in London? You cannot. Every amalgamation involves the shifting of responsibility to a body far away from the pit. In the old days the individual owner sent his instruction to his manager, and as he was on the spot he knew what he was doing. Now the manager can get instructions that coal must be produced at such and such a cost, from a man who probably has not seen the pit and cannot even pronounce its name. This is a dangerous kind of ownership, far removed from the pit, and there is only one sensible thing to do. When an industry reaches the stage of an absentee ownership which is anti-social, the only thing to do is to make it a public service under public ownership. That is what will have to be done in the mining industry, and it is the only logical thing to do. We say that if there is a case for amalgamation it must of necessity be a case for public ownership, and that the only amalgamation which is justified is that which gives the public full control.
One word about royalties. I came across a document giving the output of coal in this country for the last 70 years, and I made a calculation as to the amount of royalties which have been paid during that time. It amounts to over £280,000,000. In 70 years the royalty owners in this country have had in royalties twice the total capital value of the industry itself. Now they are to have an additional £66,000,000. It has been said that the problem is psychological, and that is partly true. It would rankle in the mind of any hon. Member if he had to go down a pit every day and get coal upon which he knew that someone who had not created the coal and had nothing to do with getting the coal was drawing royalties. Quite frankly, I believe there is perfect justification for bringing forward a proposal saying that after a certain date the coal shall revert to its real owners, but that is not in this Bill. The Commission is given charge of the coal, and the one complaint I have to make is that having set up the Commission the Government have seemed to be too anxious to limit its powers. This is the Government's Commission, but they have been too anxious to confine its powers. I wish it had more power as owner of the coal itself.
The virgin coal in this country is now in the hands of the Commission, and

they have a golden opportunity of planning the future of the industry on reasonable lines. Look at the history of the last ten years. Look at the mess in the mining industry, the colossal wastage of coal. If someone ever writes the history of this period he will refer to the prodigal and criminal waste of coal. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has referred to it, and I have seen seams seven and eight feet thick, part of which have been left behind. The cry has been, "Never mind, get out the coal." This is the treasure of the nation, and I hope the Commission will regard it as one of their first duties to see that one condition of a lease will be that the coalowner does not waste a single ton of this great national treasure, and will also include conditions to prevent the accumulations of dirt and rubbish at the pitheads, which have hitherto been allowed with a complete disregard for social and public amenities.
Something will have to be done about existing leases, but as to the future the Commission will have a great opportunity. Here we are carrying into law another Coal Bill. We have been proposing a Coal Bill once every two years for the last 60 years, and in the intervening period we have been appointing commissions and committees of inquiry. Here is another Coal Bill. We shall some day have to bring in a comprehensive Bill which will make the coal of this country national property. In the meantime we accept the Bill in the hope that it may be used to bring a ray of sunshine so badly needed into the lives of the miners of this country.

7.0 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I should like to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines on being in sight of the end of their labours, at any rate in this House. I have throughout supported the Bill in principle and such Amendments as I have moved or supported have been designed, as far as possible, to improve and not to hinder it. I feel that the Bill, as it stands, provides a real contribution towards realising the aim defined in the Gracious Speech as the furtherance of reorganisation in the coal industry. I feel, too, that it is a definite contribution towards an improvement of the export trade. It is a regrettable fact that, although our export trade last year increased by 16.85 per


cent., during that same time the export trade of Germany and the Saar increased by over 35 per cent. and of Poland by 28 per cent. I feel that the attention of the Government is required to this problem. I feel also that, taking the long view, the Bill has a definite contribution to make, partly through Parts I and II, which may result in the cheaper working of coal and the quicker loading of ships, but mainly by Part III, which prolongs the selling schemes, and the increased bargaining power that we gain thereby will be of great advantage.
I hope that in due course the Commissioners may make a further contribution themselves relating to the incidence of royalties. Royalties are much heavier in the exporting districts than elsewhere. In South Wales last year they averaged 8.63 pence, in Scotland just over 6 pence, and in Durham 5.83 pence. In the prosperous inland areas, such as Yorkshire, they were only 4.61 pence, and in Derby and Notts 4.58 pence. The reasons are well known. The royalties in the exporting districts were fixed at a time of great prosperity, between 1874 and 1913, when our export trade increased by something like 470 per cent., and naturally the royalties fixed at that time were fixed on a high scale. Since the War, when depression has come upon the export trade, the exporting districts have been hit even more hardly than the others. To-day the burden of royalties rests most heavily on the least prosperous districts. I hope it may be permissible to talk about the distributors. They are the first purchasers from the collieries, and while the Bill has been going through I understand that a departmental committee has been set up to inquire into their activities. I am a director of a very old-established distributing company, and before I came into the House I was actively engaged in the distributing trade. I should like to make a few remarks in that capacity.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is proposing to speak on something in which he is directly interested. The hon. Member can only deal on the Third Reading with matters that are in the Bill itself.

Colonel Clarke: I apologise. The President of the Board of Trade, on the Second Reading, in referring to Part II, while reassuring some of his critics with regard to it, said that the period of expansion in the coal industry during the

nineteenth century was not a normal time. I was very much struck with that remark and I very much agree with it. I feel that it applies not only to coal but to other industries too, and, if that fact is borne in mind, I feel that some of the criticism that has been levelled at the regulation to-day of trade and industry might be modified. I believe that, on the whole, conditions of trading were very much less controlled in the nineteenth than during preceding centuries, and it was not a normal time. Great increases of wealth and population, and the expansion of markets allowed things to be done which could not be considered now. One finds proof of that in the history of the coal trade. I believe that up till 1830 in the London district all coal that came in through the Port of London was subject to very strict control. Prices, and the amount of coal put on the market, were controlled, and coal from other districts was prevented from coming into London. That all broke down about 1830. Exactly a century later those conditions were restored, and to-day we are reaffirming and continuing them. I feel, however, that from the point of view of our generation to-day a new order in the coal trade is being built up, an order in which, while private ownership and a measure of competition remain, the industry will come to be regarded more and more by those who control it as a trust for the benefit of the three parties concerned—owners; workers, by hand or brain or both; and consumers; and themselves as trustees.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth: I feel that to-night marks an epoch in the industrial history of the country. As far as I know, no Bill has ever gone through the House which so controls industry as will this. First of all, the whole of the coal will belong to the State. Each pit is given a quota as to how much it shall produce, and it is a striking thing that a pit may pay a dividend without producing coal at all. That is what Part I of the 1930 Act did, and it is continued under this Bill. We go on from the control of production to the selling schemes where the price of coal is largely dictated in an arbitrary manner by the coalowners, in addition to which there can be compulsory amalgamations, and the astounding thing to me is that in this House, with the great majority of Members sitting on the benches op-


posite, we can be passing without a Division a Bill which really marks a revolution in the industrial history of the country. The Secretary for Mines rather twitted me with being almost alone in opposition to the Bill, but almost every one of the things that we are now passing has received his opposition on previous occasions. I could have understood his speech coming from either a Socialist or a Fascist Minister, but I really cannot understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman recommending this Bill, with the political beliefs which he professes to hold. The most interesting point about the speech of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) was that after he had spent almost half an hour denouncing the Bill he then told the House he was not quite sure whether it was so bad after all, and that they did not intend to divide on it. I cannot find anyone to divide with even in my own party. If I could I would see that there was a Division.
There are one or two things I want to say with regard to the selling schemes. I cannot imagine anyone suggesting that the miner has ever been overpaid. I cannot imagine anyone not wanting the miner to get not merely an adequate but a generous wage for the difficult task that he performs. I would also state quite definitely that the coalowner is entitled to a reasonable return on his capital. Every speech to-day, with one exception, has been made by people interested in the industry from one angle or another. Consumers outside are almost unanimous that they are being charged far too much for their coal. I have had lists sent me from consumers in Bradford showing increases ranging from 4s. to 7s. a ton in the past 18 months. I cannot understand where the advances come in, because they have certainly not been given to the miner in that proportion. There are industrial concerns in Bradford which have not paid a dividend for seven years, and to one of them the increase under the selling scheme means £35,000 a year. Do not let it be imagined that the consumers outside are satisfied because we are going to pass this Bill.
I wish to offer a word of advice to the coalowners. Do not let them run away with the idea that they will be allowed to abuse these privileges which they are given by Statute. It is true that the President of the Board of Trade has tried

quite sincerely to meet—I do not think he has met—the legitimate complaints of consumers about the prices which they are being charged under the selling schemes. I have received one deputation after another from all types of industry in the City of Bradford complaining seriously about the effect on the cost of production of the high increases levied upon them through the selling schemes. It may be true, as the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said, that it was essential to introduce those schemes, but I would not have had any legislation to do so far as the coal industry is concerned.
In any case, there is no justification, simply because Parliament has decided that owing to the continual upset in the coal industry, there must be selling schemes, for that industry to be carried on the back of every other industry in the country and for exorbitant prices to be charged for coal. This Measure will not be judged by the fact that there is no division in the House to-night; it will be judged by its effects not only on the coal industry, but on every other industry in the country. I believe that every industry and every householder desires to treat fairly all those engaged in the coal industry, but, without wishing to make any wild charges, I feel convinced that undue advantages have been taken of the schemes that are now in force. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines will not think that their duties with regard to the coal industry are finished when this Bill receives its Third Reading to-night. The President of the Board of Trade, by his office, is supposed to be the representative of the consumers, and to look after their interests. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction about these selling schemes and the way in which they are working.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) said that I differed from him on the question of amalgamations. I do not wish to misrepresent what my hon. Friend said, but I gather that he said he was not certain that voluntary amalgamations were good. I cannot understand that he should have gone on to say that, although doubtful of the efficacy of voluntary amalgamations, he had not the slightest doubt about compulsory amalgamations. My experience of amalgamations has been that where they have not possessed a monopoly, they have been unsuccessful. There have been


very few amalgamations in the woollen and worsted textile trade, and I do not think that one of them has been a huge success.
The Secretary for Mines rather criticised the hon. Member for Seaham, whose contention was that nationalisation would settle all the troubles of the industry. The Secretary for Mines said that the hon. Member for Seaham had no right to assume that. Nor has the Secretary for Mines any right to assume that compulsory amalgamation will settle the issues. There is no more logic in claiming that compulsory amalgamation will settle the troubles than in claiming that nationalisation would. I seem to be alone in my opposition to this Bill. Hon. Members of the Labour party do not intend to divide against it, the Liberal party does not intend to do so, and hon. Members of the Conservative party, true to the old school tie, are going to accept the repudiation of every principle in which they have ever suggested they believed. The Bill means the absolute obliteration of private enterprise in the coal industry. Having made my last protest against this Bill, it would have given me great pleasure to have found at least one soul in the House who was prepared to vote against a Bill which marks an absolute revolution in the industrial history of this country.

7.21 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I wish briefly to state the point of view of the trawling and fishing industry with regard to this Bill, and in doing so I follow the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), who spoke about the interests of the consumers. Fishing vessels consume 4,000,000 tons of coal a year, and the trawling part of the industry consumes 3,500,000 tons. The industry is concerned about the rise in prices which is possibly foreshadowed by Part II and Part III of the Bill. Coal is one of the largest items of expense in connection with a trawler, and accounts for approximately 30 per cent. of the total expense. It is true that trawlers have no difficulty on the whole in getting coal supplies through the quota, but it is also true that the increasing price of coal is a very serious matter for them. The fact that fishing vessels use coal throughout the year is of great benefit to the collieries, as the fishing vessels take a weekly or monthly supply from them, and there is not merely a seasonal demand from them.
It may interest hon. Members to know that a vessel uses 4 tons of coal in catching one ton of fish, and that a trawler operating from Grimsby takes from 250 to 300 tons of coal on each voyage to the Arctic. Since 1935, prices F.O.B. have increased from 16s. rod. per ton plus trimming, to 19s. 5d. a ton, in 1937. The increase under this Bill will be from 4s. to 4s. 6d. per ton, which means that the fishing industry will have to provide from £800,000 to £1,000,000 more in the coming year than it did in 1937. I hope the House will realise that with the prices of fish as they are now, that increase in the price of coal to the fishing fleet will be a very serious item. It is probable that Grimsby will have to provide something in the nature of £200,000 in the coming year if they buy according to the contracts into which they have entered; if, on the other hand, they buy only in accordance with the amount of coal which they bought in January and February, the amount will be about £120,000.
This is a matter for the serious consideration of the Government, in view of the fact that some of the trawlers are considering having Diesel engines. Trawlers are among the few vessels at the present time which mainly use coal. Certain long-distance trawlers have been fitted with Diesel engines, and the experiment that is being made with regard to the cost and fuel consumption is being very carefully watched. That is a matter which it is worth while considering in these times of emergency. If the increase in the price of coal drives still more trawlers to use oil fuel, I suggest that it will be a very bad thing for the country, as well as to a certain extent cutting off a large market for the collieries. The question of the price of fish is not perhaps in Order on this Bill, but I would point out that the increase in the cost of coal comes at a time when the prices of fish are very bad. As the House knows well, there are a great many trawlers laid up. For these reasons, I hope that those who administer the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will give special consideration to the fishing fleet, and will do their best not to drive the owners of fishing vessels into using oil fuel, and that if necessary, they will, in all their operations, consult with both the owners and the men. It is known, of course, that the skipper and the mate on a trawler work on a share basis, and the increase in the price of coal will very


much lower their earnings. At the same time, it will also have a considerable effect on the crews of the trawlers. I hope the matters which I have raised will be taken into consideration.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Wragg: As I am one of the few hon. Members on this side of the House who represents a mining constituency, I would like to say a few words on the Third Reading of this Bill. I wish to thank the Government for the concessions that have been made to meet various interests. Although there are differences of opinion on the other side of the House, as there are on this side, I think the Bill represents a happy mean between all the conflicting points of view. With regard to Part III, which deals with the selling schemes, I think very few people realise what effect the selling schemes have had on miners' wages, and I am rather surprised that there has been no gratitude expressed from the other side of the House for the large increase in wages which has been brought about by the action of the Government in the selling schemes which they have brought forward since 1935 and which are to be continued by this Bill." In my constituency where, at the General Election in 1935, the miners were talking about going on strike for an extra 2s. a day, they have received an increase of 2s. per shift since 1935. In Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, the figures show that, in 1935, the miners worked 219 shifts only at 10s. 5¾d. a shift, and earned £114 15s., and that in 1937, they worked 249 shifts at 12s. 8d. a shift, and earned £158 7s., not much short of a 50 per cent. increase in earnings during the year. That was to a great extent due to the selling schemes and the Bills introduced by the Government. Hon. Members opposite representing the mining industry and the miners might show a little gratitude to the Government for the action they have taken which has been of very considerable assistance to miners in my constituency and throughout the country. I do not propose to say anything in regard to amalgamations——

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL (By Order).

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Act not to come into force until Minister of Transport's certificate issued.)

The provisions of this Act shall not come into operation until the Minister of Transport shall have issued a certificate to the effect—

(a) that he is satisfied that the Company has released its agents from any agreements, whether oral or in writing, which prevent such agents from providing booking facilities for persons desiring to travel by any lawful air service in Great Britain, whether or not such service is in competition with another air service in which the said Company is financially interested; and
(b) that he has received a written assurance from the Company that they will not, during the next ten years, procure the giving by any agent (whether for a consideration or not and whether orally or in writing) of any such undertaking as would, if it were legally binding on the said agent, impose upon him an obligation only to book passengers for certain specified air services.—[Colonel Ropner.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.31 p.m.

Colonel Ropner: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of the new Clause is to give some Minister power to insist that the railway companies, in this case the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, shall relax the conditions which they have imposed on agencies in the case of air line companies.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is moving the second of the two Clauses standing in his name?

Colonel Ropner: Yes, Sir, I am moving the Second of the new Clauses. The present position with regard to the agencies is this. An important part of their ordinary business is the sale of railway tickets. The London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, together with other railway companies, has informed the agencies that if they sell to the public tickets for air travel over the internal air lines, or even for foreign destinations, the railway companies will withdraw from the agencies the privilege of disposing of railway tickets. It must be obvious to hon. Members that that gives the railway companies very great power over the agencies, because for every man or


woman who travels by the internal air routes tens or scores of thousands travel by rail. The position now is that no agency dares to ignore the ban with regard to booking facilities for air transport. I would ask the House clearly to understand the position. The ban on the agencies from granting booking facilities and upon the air lines from obtaining this form of assistance in carrying out their business, is of universal application. It is true that in the case of some air lines special concessions have been made——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must refer to the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company and not to all the railways, otherwise he will not be in order.

Colonel Ropner: If I have committed the error of referring to the railway companies in general, all I can say is that everything I say of the railway companies in general applies to the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company also.

Mr. Speaker: It is not in order for the hon. and gallant Member to refer in general to railway companies. He must deal with the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company.

Colonel Ropner: Then I will deal with the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company.

Mr. Speaker: With that one railway company only.

Colonel Ropner: Not with the other railway companies?

Mr. Speaker: Not with the other companies.

Colonel Ropner: The point with which I wish to deal refers exclusively to the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company. In the instances that I intended to give, I was about to say that a special concession has been made by the London Midland and Scottish Company in respect of Allied Airways, a concession for which we are grateful, which was announced in the "Times" this morning. If I were tempted to inaugurate an air line in that part of the country which is served by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company I should find that every agency would be closed against me. I understand that the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. H.

Macmillan) may reply for the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, and I should like to ask him this specific and definite question. If any member of the general public were to endeavour to run an air line in competition with the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, what facilities for booking tickets would be granted by that railway company? Would they, in other words, abuse their power, or would they give a free hand to the air company?
The development of air travel is sufficiently difficult in this country already, and it appears to me iniquitous that the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company should inflict this additional handicap. I have not the slightest doubt that it is a deliberate attempt by this railway company to stifle altogether the competition of air travel, and if this is not possible, then to gain control of whatever air lines survive their hostile action. I think it was the right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) who reminded us only a few days ago that this railway company had ruined canal transport in their area, and I think he mentioned that they had been caught napping by the development of road transport. In the case of the air, although they cannot prevent flying altogether, I feel certain that they are endeavouring to control flying from the beginning.
I do not want to take up too much time, but I should like to ask a question. Here again, it is the London Midland and Scottish Company that is concerned. When will the ban be lifted on the service to Ireland? This line is maintained on a pooling basis by an English and an Irish company. The Irish company is owned, I understand, by the Government of Eire. Over there, even the railway companies themselves are prepared to sell tickets for air travel, but in this country you cannot buy through any agency a ticket to fly to Ireland. This is, I believe, the case which was referred to in the Cadman Report, and it is by no means the only case, as was stated in that document. There are air lines running between Shoreham and Ryde, between London and Deauville, between London and Le Touquet, between Penzance and the Scilly Isles——

Mr. Speaker: Are all those under the. London Midland and Scottish Railway Company?

Colonel Ropner: If the House will bear with me one moment longer I shall try to indicate the connection between these air lines and the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, although I know that they are actually on the South Coast. There is a very real connection, which I shall point out. There are also air line connections between Shoreham and the Isle of Wight, and between Bristol and Cardiff. The competing companies in the case of all these lines are railway air services, and the railway air services if they are not owned wholly are partially owned by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company.

Mr. Speaker: That argument affects all the railway companies, and not simply one company. I am very doubtful whether the new Clause is in order. It is very doubtful whether the railway company could fulfil the condition laid down in the first part of the new Clause which seeks to impose certain restrictions in contracts. I think it is very doubtful whether such a condition is relevant to the new Clause. I do not think that it 1s. Therefore, I should have to rule that part of the Clause out of order. With regard to the second part, I doubt whether the railway company could fulfil that condition if it were imposed upon them. Therefore, I must rule the Clause out of order.

Colonel Ropner: Am I to understand that you have ruled the Clause out of order? I have tried very hard to keep within the rules of order, although you did warn me that there would be difficulty in my doing so.

Mr. Speaker: I have ruled the Clause out of order.
Bill to be read the Third time.

Mr. Muff: Shall I be in order in speaking on the Third Reading?

Mr. Speaker: We are not on the Third Reading of the Bill yet. We have passed the Report stage, and the Bill is ordered to be read the Third time. The Third Reading will be put down for another day.

Orders of the Day — COAL BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Muff: Although hon. Members on this side of the House do not intend to divide against the Third Reading of the Bill, some of us view with apprehension certain Clauses, particularly the Clauses which are going to bring satisfaction to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and various other vested interests which are protected in the Bill. There will be great joy among the coalowners, who in their capacity as first purchasers under the many aliases which they possess, when they transform themselves into purchasers of coal, will be very adequately able to protect their interests in seeing to it that they continue to exploit the public by charging an undue amount for the commodity which they supply to the public.
My intention is simply to put the case of certain municipal authorities which are not in any way protected by the Bill as it stands. I am sorry that the Association of Municipal Corporations has not thought that this Bill was sufficiently important for them to take active steps in order to protect the interests not only of the ratepayers for whom they are responsible, but also the interests of the various undertakings in which ratepayers' money is invested. I can understand that when this Bill receives the Royal Assent the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) in his capacity of Ecclesiastical Commissioner, will sing a song of praise, thanking the Government for the adequate protection given in the Bill for the ecclesiastical interests of this country, while the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) will, I am certain, with a smile upon his face, be ready to join with the other coalowners as a choir to help the hon. Member for Central Leeds. To some of us, this Bill is disappointing, because it does not go far enough, and while I cannot mention anything which is not in the Bill, I want to re-emphasise those Clauses in the Bill which leave high and dry, stranded and forlorn, the consumers of coal in this country.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. McLean Watson: This Bill raises some very interesting problems in connection with mining. We had a very interesting speech, as we always have when he speaks, from the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). I do not know why he belongs to the House of Commons at all. He seems to be


entirely out of his element here, and to-night he was all alone in the views that he was expressing on this Bill. If he could have found another Member of the House who was prepared to tell with him, he would have divided against the Bill. I dare say that on the other side of the House there are Members who would have liked to have joined the hon. Member for South Bradford, because I am not sure that all those hon. Members are satisfied with this so-called unification of mining royalties. It is not that they are not getting sufficient—I think they are getting sufficient in the way of money—for parting with the coal measures, but I do not believe they like this principle of so-called unification. It is tending too much to nationalisation, a thing which Members on the other side generally are supposed to be against.
The Government are carrying out part of their election pledges. They promised during the last General Election that there would be a unification of mining royalties, and we are going to have these great coal measures unified, and unified at a price. It is not for us, on these benches, to object either to unification or to nationalisation. We have for many years advocated the taking out of private ownership of the coal measures of this country, but I am certain that if a Labour Government had been in power when the unification of mining royalties had had to be undertaken, the royalty owners would not have fared as well as they have done at the hands of the present Government. The mining industry has asked for many years for the control of mining royalties to be taken out of the hands of private owners, on the assumption that a very considerable improvement would thus be made in the position of the miners. The miners have always considered that having to hand over to the royalty owners something approximating 6d. per ton was a tax upon their industry that could not possibly be justified, but while we, on this side of the House, agree to these coal measures being taken out of the hands of private owners, we most strenuously object to a sum of £66,500,000 being paid to the royalty owners in this connection. We always attached the greatest importance to this question, because we saw in the acquiring of these mining royalties a possibility of improving the position of the miners.
A good deal has been said during these Debates with regard to amalgamations and about whether voluntary or compulsory amalgamations were the more suitable for the industry. Before now I have expressed myself as favourable to amalgamations; I think they can be justified on many grounds. I can at the same time understand the opposition to amalgamation on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and the opposition that comes from South Wales, whether these amalgamations are voluntary or compulsory. I believe that South Wales has suffered most from voluntary amalgamations, which have left behind them any number of derelict colliery villages throughout the whole of that area. That is not confined to South Wales. In my own area there are villages that have been left derelict because of amalgamations, but, as I have pointed out on a former occasion, while that is true, it is also true that by certain amalgamations taking place and small collieries being acquired by a larger company, it has been possible to develop those small collieries and turn them into comparatively large-scale collieries. That is the opposite side of the picture to that which can be presented from South Wales.
In my area I have seen amalgamations working out in both ways, to the disadvantage of the miner and to his advantage, so far as work and employment were concerned. I have seen villages closed down and the men left in them having to travel long distances to find employment in adjoining collieries, hut, on the other hand, I have seen small collieries taken over by a big concern and developed, and in place of 100 or 200 men, some 400 or 500 employed as a result of the improvement that the larger concern has been able to make to the small collieries. I can quite understand representatives of mining areas on this side of the House taking these two opposite sides, one against amalgamations, because of the evil that has been wrought by them, and the other favouring amalgamations because it sees in them the possibility of further developments in the area concerned.
It is not to be expected that an individual coalowner could to-day set going a colliery as easily as was the case 50 or 60 years ago, when the coal seams could be worked very near the surface


and when a very small amount of capital could sink a shaft, get coal, and do very well indeed. Most of these surface seams are being or have been worked out, and nowadays, in order to reach the coal measures, deeper shafts have to be sunk, which means that a very large amount of capital has to be engaged in the development of collieries. The day of the individual colliery owner has gone, and we have to face the fact that it is only by a number of men with capital coming together that a colliery can be set up and kept going successfully under present conditions. There is no need to hark back to the time when we had individual colliery owners owning a colliery and employing every man in it, himself being the manager of the colliery. Those days have passed, and now we have the day of amalgamations.
While I am not looking forward to this Bill giving us many compulsory amalgamations, I believe that, just as in the past, as the various colliery concerns find that they can do better from their own point of view—that is to say, they can earn bigger dividends—by amalgamating collieries, these amalgamations will go on in the future as in the past, voluntarily, and without any regard whatever to the derelict villages that may be left in their place. Personally, I would rather have seen a system of compulsory amalgamation, with the responsibility for the men engaged in the industry resting upon the concerns that carried through the amalgamation. I would like to have seen amalgamation responsible not only for finding employment for as many men as possible after it had taken place, but responsible also for the men who were thrown out of employment. That, however, is not in this Bill, and, as I say, I do not see very many amalgamations taking place under the conditions that are laid down in the Bill.
I want to say a word or two with regard to selling schemes. We have had during these Debates the usual complaints about the increased price of coal, and I dare say that after this Bill has become the law of the land, we shall hear again about the great increase in the price of coal, and the public outside will be led to believe that the miner is responsible for it. When we shall be able to get the outside public to realise that

the miner's wage depends upon the pithead selling price of coal, I do not know, but the general impression is that the big price of coal in this country is directly due to the wage that the miner receives and that he is really responsible for the increase in the price. It has been made clear from this side that we will welcome any inquiry into the present price that either domestic or industrial consumers are paying for their coal, because the miner has nothing to fear. His wages depend upon the realised pithead selling price of coal, and between that price and the price that is paid by the domestic or industrial consumer there is an enormous difference; and we certainly would welcome an inquiry into the difference between these prices.
I dare say that by and by we shall be able to get the public to realise that the miner is not responsible for the enormous price that is being charged for coal, but I hope these selling schemes that have been set up will be continued and that at last the British coalowners and the British miners have discovered a means whereby the miner can at least get a reasonable wage. These selling schemes have undoubtedly steadied the industry, with regard both to output and to wages, and I hope we shall not lose these selling schemes. They could have been in operation long before they were if it had not been for the thickheadedness of the colliery owners of Great Britain. Under the 1930 Act there was machinery for setting up selling schemes, but the British coalowners did not condescend to draft schemes until they were compelled to do so by this House. I agree that, under this Measure, those schemes will continue and while they are only continued for a limited period, I believe the House and the country will recognise that in them there is the possibility of keeping the industry free from the disputes and troubles which it experienced for many years in the past.
Until these schemes began to operate, the miners were always considering either some reduction of wages or some worsening of conditions as a result of action on the part of the coalowners and demands upon the coalowners for improvements in wages and conditions were constantly being made. Under the selling schemes, these matters are settled automatically. An ascertainment is made and wages are


settled on the basis of that ascertainment. It is not a question of the miners wages always rising. While these schemes have been in operation there have been both rises and falls in the rate of wages. In Scotland in the middle of last year the miners were down to their minimum wage and, in all probability, they will come down to the minimum again in the course of the present year. In summer time, when the demand slackens and prices fall, wages fall also. It is true that when prices recover, the miners get an increase in wages and the selling schemes have been a great advantage to the miners. Now that they have been set in operation, I hope that owners and miners alike will see in them the possibility of keeping the industry clear of the disastrous troubles which have taken place in bygone days.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Richards: It would be unfair to the House to seek to continue this Debate at any length, but I wish to intervene briefly as one who is not intimately associated with the mining industry, although I know something about the difficulties through which it has been passing. This is a historic Debate in more than one sense. In the first place, I think it marks the end of the days of laissez faire. Most of us probably admired the speech by the hon. Member of the Liberal party who regretted that he would not be given an opportunity of dividing against the Bill, but the interesting feature of his speech was the emphasis laid by him upon the fact that, however we may talk about unification of royalties in connection with this Bill, what we are really doing tonight is giving the Third Reading to a Bill which begins the process—whether that process is to prove long or short—of the nationalisation of coal in this country.
We are beginning with the nationalisation, or, as the Bill terms it, the unification of royalties, but it seems to me that only a short time will elapse before we shall have to proceed to consider the unification or nationalisation of the industry itself. Amalgamation is, so to speak, a halfway house on the road to the unification, or, to use the term which we on this side prefer, the nationalisation of the industry. With regard to royalties, we on this side of the House consider that those are economic rights of the community, which should never have been alienated. We recognise, however, that it has been done and we recognise the

justice of the argument of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that, having enjoyed these privileges for many years, the people who are in possession of them ought to get some compensation for delivering them up to the community. But it was a great tragedy, I suggest, that the community ever allowed these rights to pass from it. I believe that was the opinion of many eminent counsellors of the time when the principle of these royalties was established that coal was in a special and peculiar position in relation to royalties. We all regard the coal industry as the foundational industry of this country, and it has been so ever since the industrial revolution. It is on the basis of coal that our modern industrial civilisation has been built.
I do not think anybody would suggest that when the period of machine production began we were more ingenious or more inventive than other people. We got the industrial lead as a result of two things. First, we had the money to enable us to try experiments. Secondly, and more important, we had the motive power which enabled us to outstrip every other country in the world in the large-scale production of goods. We are therefore dealing here with the basic industry of our industrial life. This industry became powerful in the early days of the industrial revolution. It reached manhood, so to speak, in the period of chaos which characterised the subsequent stages of the industrial revolution and one always feels about it that no attempt has ever been made to organise it with a view to increasing its efficiency in this country. Instead it has been allowed to go on its own sweet wild way until we have been faced, particularly during the last 20 years, with terribly chaotic conditions in the coal industry.
I do not know whether we on this side ought to bless the Bill wholeheartedly, but, as far as the unification of royalties is concerned, it is at, any rate a step in the right direction, and the time will come I believe before long when the claim of the country for the unification or nationalisation of the whole industry will be irresistible. As has frequently been said, we on this side regard the industry largely, if not entirely, from the human point of view. It is always difficult to combine economic with human considerations, but I think human considerations must influence us very strongly in rela-


tion to industry where wages are such an important element, and where human life is so frequently sacrificed on the altar of profit. No industry can compare with it, in the extent to which it maims and destroys those engaged in it. To get anything like a proper comparison with it one has to think of a modern war.
We desire to approach the consideration of the industry from the human point of view, and from that point of view the House ought to be glad that we are taking this step to secure fundamental control over such an important industry. Amalgamations and selling schemes are attempts to control the economics of the industry, but we are looking forward to a time when the industry will be humanised, when the great ability of the collier will be recognised, and when the industry will be converted from a mere profit-making institution into a real national service. This Bill marks the beginning. I cannot to-night refer to the end which I have indicated as being in view, but I think it is prophetic that "dyed-in-the wool" Conservative Ministers should have been driven to nationalise the coal of this country. The day is not far distant, I am certain, when the whole of the industry will be organised in the same way, when it will no longer be a question of amalgamations and selling schemes but when the best brains of the country, both inside the industry and outside it, will be concentrated upon making it a first-class public service.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: The Bill which we are considering is the latest of a long series of Measures dealing with the coal industry. They have all had certain features in common. In the first place, they have all been extremely complicated in their terms. In the second place, they have never seemed to satisfy either the mineowners or the mineworkers. In the third place, they all seem to show a very scant regard for the interests of the consumers. In judging the terms of this Bill, we must bear in mind the history of the industry. That history has been a very unhappy one. I suppose that most hon. Members who are, like myself, entirely unconnected either with the mineowners or the mineworkers, will agree that in this troublous history both sides have been much to blame. Certainly

I think it is true to say that the Mine-owners' Federation is a very, very poor advertisement for private enterprise. On the other hand, I think the mineworkers' organisation holds out precious little hope of a satisfactory solution of the problem by nationalisation.
No doubt there are exceptions in both cases. There are firms which efficiently manage their business as coalowners and try to give the workpeople a fair deal. On the other hand, there are representatives in the House and elsewhere who speak for the mineworkers and present the claims of those workers in a reasonable way. The speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) to-night was a case in point. I thought as I listened to it that it carried conviction from the very moderation with which it was set out. These are exceptions. Broadly speaking, there has been much to blame on both sides, and out of these troubles has arisen this constant need for further legislation. To-night we have this Bill before us. I am not qualified to go into its technical details, but there are one or two general considerations which we can all appreciate. One of the obvious results of the Bill will be to increase the size and influence of various undertakings which carry on the business of colliery owners. I venture to say that another result will be that the difficulties and anxieties of the consumers of coal will be increased. In my constituency we are not interested in the getting of coal; we are interested only as consumers, and it is as a representative of those consumers that I speak to-night.
I feel great sympathy with the views which were put forward to-day and at other stages of the Bill by the hon. Member for Newport (Sir R. Clarry). There is no question that all over the country consumers of coal view the future under this Bill with great anxiety. They are anxious about the price they may have to pay for their coal. They are anxious as to the quality of the coal they will get. They are anxious, too, as to the regularity of supplies. The Secretary for Mines does not, I understand, share that anxiety. I can only hope he will prove to be right and the consumers will prove to be wrong. At least this much is certain. The coalowners as a body are, under this Bill, given, or are confirmed in, very great powers, which throw on them great responsibilities. I should like


to express the hope that those powers will be wisely used. Coal is the foundation of our industrial greatness. There is no other single article which is of greater importance. If these powers, given and confirmed under this Bill, are not wisely used so that the price of coal is unreasonably forced up and so that those in charge of works of various kinds cannot get the quality and quantity of coal that they desire, great damage will be done to the industry of this country. It is too late now to alter one line of the Bill in this House. We see the Bill before us as we have finished with it, and I can only hope that the great powers which have been given to the owners will be wisely used.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I had a feeling at one moment when an hon. Member on the Liberal benches was asking someone to associate with him in forcing a Division, that I would join with him, because, like the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), I realise the trick that is being played by the Minister of Mines and those who are associated with him. Like the Member for Spennymoor also, however, I feel it is very desirable to retain the selling schemes, and that places us in a difficult position with regard to voting against the Bill. It is necessary to say a word or two in regard to the compensation which is being paid for royalties. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) argued somewhat fallaciously about this £5,000,000 a year and said that he would readily invest his money at the rate of £66,500,000 for an income of £5,000,000 a year. He forgot to mention that this £5,000,000 per year which the royalty owners are getting does not represent a return for capital invested. There are one or two here and there who have bought royalties, but in general this £5,000,000 a year represents money for nothing. I know that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) takes a moderate and sympathetic attitude towards this question, and says that as the owners have enjoyed these royalties for so long, they ought to get compensation. Everyone on the other side, of course, agrees with that, but we never find them agreeing to compensation for loss of their jobs when workers having enjoyed jobs for so long, are displaced by compulsory amalgamation.
We should never give concessions to these people at all. They will take everything from us and give us nothing. When we ask them to stop taking money for nothing, we hand them a bonus of £66,500,000. I know one of the royalty owners who has dug well into the £5,000,000 a year and will be well dug in to the global sum, who is a close friend of Herr Hitler. The share of the money that he gets will be used on every occasion against the masses of the people. The miners of this country have been demanding with greater and greater insistence that this burden of royalties should be taken off. The appeal has met with a stronger and stronger response from a great body of the people. These royalties are a gift that has been given year after year to people who have no claims to them. The movement against royalties has grown stronger, and the Government know that if this question were not settled at the present moment, the demand for the removal of royalties would, when a recession of trade occurs, be of such a character that it would be impossible to come forward with such proposals as these for compensation. The Government are taking advantage of a moment when there is a bit of a boom in industry to get it through. If they did not get it through now they would, in three or four years, have had to take royalties without compensation except to those who had actually invested money in buying them.
Who is going to pay the £66,500,000? The miners have been demanding that this intolerable burden should be taken off, and the Government say, "We will lift the burden from you and we will charge you £66,500,000 for doing it." It is the miners who will have to pay. Will the Minister deny that? The money is not coming from the coalowners, who get their profits out of the labour of the miners, and it is not coming from any of the other industries. The lone Liberal Member representing South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) said in a warning to the coal-owners: "The coal industry cannot be carried on the backs of the other industries of the country." He said that in connection with the selling schemes. Really the position is the other way about. The industries of this country have been making big profits at the expense of the coal industry, at the expense


of low prices and low wages for the miners.
Not only have the coalowners been making profits out of the miners but other industries have been making profits at the expense of the miners, and now the miners are to pay, through these royalty rents, which will come from their labour, £66,500,000 to these people who have never given any service for the money they are getting. If we have £66,500,000 to spare there are many better sources to which we could direct it. We could direct it towards making the pits safer for the miners. The miners would not hesitate to give that extra amount of money towards making the pits safer. They would not hesitate to give that extra money for providing compensation when compulsory amalgamations take place, or to ensure proper superannuation for miners. Therefore, I am bitterly opposed to this sheer robbery of the miners on behalf of wealthy, titled people who have never been anything but parasites upon the labour of the masses of the workers.
I would oppose the Bill if this payment of £66,500,000 were the only issue, and I would oppose it on the question of amalgamations, because I am opposed to amalgamations which guarantee the profits of the big industrial magnates and the interests of the financiers but not the welfare of the workpeople who are employed and those who will be thrown out of employment. Compulsory amalgamation without any regard to the human factor is something which none of us on this side will ever tolerate. There is so much room in the mining industry for bettering and brightening the lives of the mining community that we should lose no opportunity of trying to get such conditions laid down that all the advantages will go to those who deserve them.
I get annoyed with hon. Members opposite talking about there being faults on both sides, on the part of the mine-owners and on the part of the miners. Have those Members ever considered the life the miner leads and the work he has to do? It is very easy to talk about faults on both sides when sitting on the benches opposite, but let hon. Members get down the pits and have to dig coal for a livelihood. I should like to see some of them who are talking about faults on both sides when they were handed their

pay-packet at the end of the week and found they had only a couple of pounds with which to keep a wife and two or three children, with rent to pay, clothes to buy and all the rest of it. Let them try it and see how they would feel then. When they talk about faults on both sides they are dealing on the one side with a gang who are concerned only with getting profits, and on the other side with men and women who have homes to maintain under the most difficult circumstances and whose lives are continually at stake.
Every day in the pits there is death and mutilation, and the Miners' Federation have the continual task of trying to humanise conditions and make life bearable for those who are carrying on the basic industry of this country. If you look back to all the Bills which have been passed from the early days, and consider the terrible, the appalling conditions which the miners have slaved under, and how their very small organisations had to fight a battle year in and year out to bring them even to the stage at which they are to-day, you will understand where the fault lay. The fault lay with those who were concerned more with profits than with human life. Therefore, I am opposed to the payment of this £66,500,000, which will come from the toil, the sweat, the blood of the miners, and I am opposed to compulsory amalgamations except under conditions, specifically laid down, which will protect those who are in employment and those who will be thrown out of work.
I should like to see selling schemes conducted in such a way as to ensure that there will not be a complete breakdown when the recession takes place, because that will be the dangerous period. We must make sure that everything is done to maintain prices, and that the Commission, or whoever else is responsible, see to it that the trickery of the coalowners in selling cheap coal to their own subsidiary organisations is ended, and that the prices at the pit-head are of such a character as will give the miners the living which they deserve. And then, of course, we must go ahead with the inquiry into the difference between the pithead prices and retail prices. Like the hon. Member for Spennymoor, I will refrain from opposing this final stage of the Bill only on account of the selling schemes. So far as it is a Measure intro-


ducing compulsory amalgamations without adequate protection for those who are thrown out of work and sanctioning the payment of £66,500,000 to the royalty owners I am opposed to the Bill.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I want to offer a few words of comment upon the Bill before it passes to another place. My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) said he felt sure in his own mind that the Bill would pass in another place. A few alterations may be introduced which will not cost much, but I do not think this Bill will have the same experience in the other place as the Cinematograph Films Bill. I was not here last Week, but I read the Debate when the Bill came back from another place, and read that the President of the Board of Trade told the Members of the other place that he was not accepting their Amendments. I think there will be very few Amendments to this Bill when it comes back to this House. I want to follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) for a few moments, and shall try to deal with three sections of the Bill from bottom to top. The hon. Member is very much perturbed about the fate of consumers, and so are we. I do not think he is more concerned about household consumers that we are. We have been disturbed about it for a number of years, especially since miners' wages have been governed by ascertainments. I have here the returns of the mining industry for the past 12 months, and the pithead selling prices of the coal in all districts averaged 15s. a ton. When the coal gets to Colchester they sell it almost as they sell strawberries in the summer, in little bags, and it is the same in London. When it is sold retail it is about £3 a ton.
We desire that when the Government set up this committee of investigation, the matter shall be gone into thoroughly. The Prime Minister told us the other week that he was setting up a committee to inquire into the selling price of coal, but we want the examination to cover the selling price of coal from the pit till it gets on to the fire. We are satisfied that it will be shown that the people who get the biggest profits out of coal are not those who produce it at the pit but the people who handle it last. As with other productive industries, the people furthest away from production are those who get the biggest profits. We

are desirous that the public shall know that it is not the miners who get the money.
Earlier in the evening, the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) crossed swords with me because of what I said on 6th February. He is not in the House now, so I will not pursue this matter as I otherwise would have done. The hon. Member was very desirous that the country should know that the men had had an increase in wages, and the figure he gave was £144 per person, risen from £109, but he forgot to say that the coal-owners' profit in 1935 was £5,000,000, in round figures. That was the time when they were afraid that there would be a strike in the mining industry, not a lockout, and they said that they could not afford to pay increases. The Miners' Federation went up and down the country and put in front of people the conditions of the miners. The people of the country said they were prepared to pay from 1s. 6d. to 2S. per ton extra if the miners received the money, but the miners did not receive it.
In 1936, the coalowners' profits were £10,000,000 against £5,000,000, and last year the profit was £13,447,00o, or over £8,000,000 increase in profit since 1935, to be set against the small increase that we have had in our wages. In regard to the 11s. per day, I would like to mention that at the pit where I worked before I came here the men worked only three days last week, that is, for 33s. and not 66s. While hon. Members are talking about prosperity in this House our chaps are on slack time, although it is in the middle of March. What they will be doing in July goodness knows. They may be working three days a fortnight instead of three days a week. The miners are nearer to the point of starvation than they were in 1931. I do not wish to pursue that point any further, but I think the hon. Member for North Leeds might have stated that the coalowners had also been receiving profits all that time.
I want to speak about amalgamations. The President of the Board of Trade is looking at his pal there. I am afraid of amalgamations because I am satisfied that they will throw thousands of men out of work.

Mr. Gallacher: Without any consideration.

Mr. Griffiths: I am coming to that. I put down an Amendment during the Committee stage asking that any man thrown out of work on account of amalgamation should receive some recompense, but the President of the Board of Trade was as hard as a piece of granite. I see that he smiles at that. I am glad that the hon. Member for North Leeds has come into the House now, but I am not going to repeat all that I have said. I was stating that he told the House that wages had gone up to £144 from £109 on the average, and that whilst miners' wages went up to that extent the profits of the owners had gone up from £5,000,000 to over £13,000,000. Did not the hon. Member forget to tell us this?

Mr. Peake: I was more interested in the wages.

Mr. Griffiths: I am not quite sure about that. There would not be so much bother about wages if it were not for the profits taken by you chaps. You would be quite prepared to hand the industry over bag and baggage if there were not something in it. I agree that as long as there is private enterprise you people must have some return for money invested, but the hon. Member for North Leeds should have shown us both sides of the picture.

Mr. Batey: Just like a coalowner.

Mr. Griffiths: I do not think there is great hope, as far as amalgamations are concerned. There are villages in Yorkshire that will be devastated. When certain pits are closed by amalgamations and there is no recompense to the workers, somebody else has to find money for those workers, who are thrown upon the Unemployment Assistance scales and indirectly upon the rates. I shall not waste any more time on this topic. My hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) spoke about the royalties in a far stronger manner than I can even attempt. The burden will still be borne by the miner. The coalowners will not pay a penny-piece more for royalties after the Bill is passed than they are paying at the present time. They may, in fact, pay slightly less in some districts.
What does it mean in flesh and blood? It comes out of the ascertainment. Last

year the royalty owners received £5,433,000 and it means that out of 730,000 miners about 36,000 were working for the royalty owner. They will have to work for the Commission now. This is on the shoulders of the miners themselves. Five men out of every hundred in the pits were working for the royalty owner. To put it in other words, 6½d. per day is taken out of men's wages. It they work six days a week, the amount is 3s. 3d. out of their wages, a heavy burden on the men. We are not opposing the Bill because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor says, the selling scheme is the only salvation in the Bill for the men's wages. That is the only thing which will help us. We stand for the selling scheme. I know that the gas companies, the electricity companies, and the public utility companies have been squealing ever since the Bill was introduced, because they said it was going to send up the price of coal to them. They have been getting coal at the expense of the blood of the miner and the starvation of the miner's wife, for years.
Arthur Cook, our late secretary, said that the miner was the scullery-maid of all other industries. We have been carrying other industries on our backs, and they have been making fabulous profits. I know that the hon. Member for North Leeds will agree with me in this, because I have heard him say that these are the people who should pay, and not the home consumer. We do not want the working man's wife in London to have to pay 3s. a bag for her coal while the miner himself gets coal at the coal face for about 1s. 4½d. per ton, plus 32 per cent., plus 6.1. The hon. Member for North Leeds smiles, but that is how our wages are paid. I have found price lists in Yorkshire showing 1s. 4½d. plus 32 per cent. plus 6.1. We are desirous that these people in the cities should have their coal cheaper than they are getting it at the present time. There is plenty of chance for that to be done, and I hope that the Committee which has been set up will inquire into the matter of prices from beginning to end, and that then the people of this country will have their coal cheaper.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I want to express my belief that this Bill contains nothing whatever for the miners apart from the selling scheme, which will provide a


foundation for the miners' wages. Many working men have asked me what could they expect out of this Bill, and my answer has been that, as far as the working miners in Northumberland are concerned, I believe there is absolutely nothing in this Bill for them. I believe so because the only thing that I can see, apart from the selling scheme, that would bring anything to the miners, would be if the reserve fund created by the Commission were sufficiently large to reduce or practically abolish the royalty rents, or whatever they may be called, that will be charged by the Commission. But it seems to me that the period we can look forward to is so indefinite that there is no prospect whatever for our men.
On the other hand, this is a Bill of major importance; I suppose it might be said to be the most important Bill in principle that has ever been introduced to deal with the mining industry. A sum of £66,500,000 is being provided for the royalty owners, who, over the years, have been extracting their millions annually out of the coal industry and out of the hard earned production of the miners; but when we look at the side which affects the miner, and remember the wages that our men are bringing home, the conditions under which they are working to earn those wages, and the increasing risks they are running at the present time, surely, when this compensation of £66,500,000 is being paid, with about another £20,000,000 added before the whole thing is wound up, something concrete should have been provided for our mining population. The other day a young man came to my house to ask advice. He was 18 years of age, and had lost all the fingers of one hand. He was receiving 4s. 6d. light work compensation. A boy is fatally injured and the parents receive less than the price of a pit pony as compensation because it is held there is no dependency. There was no consideration for the parents who have brought him to the age of 15 or 16. And yet we bring in a major Bill of this description with nothing in it of a concrete nature for our mining population.
As I said on the Second Reading, I am alarmed at some of the speeches that have been made here, and at some of the announcements that have been made outside by industrial leaders who are not engaged in the coal industry,

but are using coal as the prime basic material for their production. We had a shipowners' dinner the other day in Newcastle, and there were reported in the Press very strong statements about the coalowners, about the effect on the coal industry, and the possibility of ships being driven to oil on account of the high prices that were being charged for coal. I remember that some time ago a White Paper was issued by the Government dealing with subsidies for the shipowners, and I remember the amount of money that the shipowners got. I remember also that it was stated in the White Paper that, while freights had dropped to a certain extent, it was necessary that a level should be maintained to build up a reserve for the next depression. Does not that mean making a ring in the freights of the shipowners, or endeavouring to stabilise rates at a level that will pay profits and will pay the wages of the seamen? Then there was Sir Malcolm Stewart, who is connected with cement. It comes to my mind that there is a ring in cement. When we are talking about building houses for the working classes, it comes into my mind that the price of cement has risen very much indeed. It is about time that people who live in glass houses discontinued throwing stones. But, having said that, I am not going to absolve the coalowners. I regard them as the thickest-headed people that we have in this country. I could not defend the coalowners.
I remember the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), whom we all like to hear because he seems so genuine and earnest and sympathetic, saying in one of his speeches that Northumberland was the nigger in the wood-pile as regards keen competition. I do not want to give a wrong impression. We had an inquiry recently, because we have been alleging that the price charged was too low to give the Northumberland coalminers a living wage. I dare not go into that, because it is private; I wish I could; but I have heard from other sources that, while Northumberland has an enormous amount of coal sold forward at very low prices, there are other districts that have not only had their coal sold forward at low prices up to 1939 and 1940, but further than that; and they are not in Northumberland. As a matter of fact, the hon. and gallant Member for North West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward), speaking here


on behalf of electricity and gas companies some time ago, gave particulars of prices they were paying in 1933 and 1937. In 1933, they were paying 12s. 11d.; and in 1937, 29s. 1d. Pit-head prices increased from 8s. 2d. to 16s. 2d., and from Its. 8d. to 21s. Then the hon. and gallant Member gave another figure. He ought to have blushed with shame. It was a contract price of 3s. 11d. for small coal. The hon. and gallant Member was deploring the high prices that are being charged, without ever getting down to the root of the matter. The charge was 3s. 11d. a ton, and the miners expect to get a wage. During these times, the average wages in Northumberland were about £2 2s. a week. To-day, they are getting only an average of £2 8s., for going down into the bowels of the earth and getting coal for the people of this country. If they are injured and on full compensation, they will probably get 23s. 6d. a week; and unless they have a reserve in the bank or the co-operative society they have to go on public assistance. When it comes to light work compensation, it is worse still. It means six or seven weeks on unemployment benefit, then going to the Unemployment Assistance Board, with the man's light work compensation being taken into consideration. That is the life of the miner.
We have had the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) to-night saying that he was not interested in the getting of coal, but only interested in the consumer. I reiterate what my hon. Friend here has said, that we are vitally interested in the people who consume coal, who belong to the working classes, and we believe that if there were a wise system—which this Bill does nothing to bring about—the consumer of coal to-day could have coal more cheaply by far than he is getting it, and we could still have an advance in wages. In 1936, according to the statistical returns for the year, the wage in Northumberland was 9s. 5.2d., and in 1937 it was 10s. In other words, there has been an increase of 6d. per shift in Northumberland. The increase in the commercial disposal price is 1s. 8d. per ton. So why are these people all complaining about the enormous increase, without getting down to fundamentals and recognising that it is not the miner who is getting it? We have only

recently got to our minimum percentage. We went to 45 for the month of February, and in the next month we dropped a point and a half again. This is not going to solve the coal problem in this country.
The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) spoke to-day about the old one-man concerns. I remember that, and I remember that the output of an individual youth in those days was considered very high if he was doing 2½ tons; but our men are going into the pit to-day, under the conveyor, and filling up 15 tons a man, for 61½d.a ton plus percentage. We are being driven and driven, and the pace is increasing; and unless something is done to deal with the coal trade that will bring into ascertainment something of what is being charged to the actual consumer, there can never be peace. The hon. Member spoke some time ago about the profits the owners have made. They have made only £22,000,000 in the last two years. I have something here that I hesitated to quote, because I do not want to help these people who are fighting the battle of the gas companies and electricity companies; I want our end looked after first. But I think I will read this. It is the report of an important coal exporting company on Tyneside. It says:
Shipowners and colliery owners, whose interests are the main consideration of these reports, after years of almost unprecedented depression"—
the hon. Member for North Leeds will agree with that—
and disastrous losses, were in dire straits for money—big money—and money quickly, for their existence sake. A merciful Providence has supplied it in superabundance during the past 12 months, and given them a new lease of life.
This report is dated 20th November, 1937. Our average wages in Northumberland between 1926 and 1927 have gone up 6d. a shift. There is something wrong; and this Bill will not put it right. This Bill will not satisfy the consumer. There are two things I am trying to say. The first is to the Northumberland miners, that there is nothing in the Bill for them; and the second is to the consumer, to whom I say, "Join with us; nationalise the coal-mining industry; take it out of the hands that have been so inefficient and feeble, and have only looked after their own selfish interests, without any regard to the miners or the consumers."

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: Some people describe the unification of coal-mining royalties dealt with in Part I of the Bill as nationalisation, but it is not nationalisaton at all. If it had been real nationalisation of coal royalties, the money would have come out of the national Treasury instead of out of the industry, and really from the miners themselves. It cannot possibly be called the nationalisation of coal-mining royalties. Clause 6 provides for the compensation of existing coalowners, and the phrase which was bandied about in this House on Second Reading and in Committee was that of the global sum. I was mystified at first as to what was meant by the global sum. I have had some experience of various kinds of globes—globes celestial and globes terrestrial. We hear that the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another, but it seems that the glory of the global sum which the royalty owners are going to get is the highest of them all. There is nothing for the men who work in the bowels of the earth, and yet the coal-owners, many of them rich men, are to be compensated. It is not a question of compensating the workers when they are injured, but of compensating the rich coalowners. Although pensions have been denied to miners who might be thrown out of work or who have reached the age of 55 and are redundant in the industry, I find, in paragraph 9 (b) of the First Schedule that it says:
There shall be paid out of the revenues of the Commission to the secretary, officers, agents and servants of the Commission such salaries and remuneration, and, on the retirement or death of any of them, to them or their personal representatives or to their dependants such pensions and gratuities, as the Commission may determine.
If provision can be made for members of the Coal Commission for pensions and gratuities, I cannot for the life of me see why this sort of thing should be denied to the workers, whose labour provides the money with which to purchase the royalties and provide the global sum about which we hear so much. Clause 20 deals with a reserve fund. They are looking forward to a time when there will be an excess over what is required for the reserve fund. They propose to reduce the rents. The rents must have been fixed at a fair and equitable rate, and any excess which accrues ought not to go back to the rentpayers, but ought to

go to the miners who make the industry possible. There are 150,000 miners of 55 years of age and upwards who have spent 40 years in the mines, which should be long enough to enable them to qualify for some of this excess money which is to be provided out of their labour. If it cannot be devoted to miners' pensions, why should it not be set aside to provide for compensation in respect of injury or fatal accident?
My hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) has spoken of the Valuation placed upon human life in the mines. If a person has no dependants, then the sum is £15 or funeral expenses, whichever is the less, which is not the price of a pit pony. Why cannot something be done towards establishing an accident or death compensation fund? Not only should the human unit be looked after in the mines, but the social unit as represented by the local authorities, who spend a great deal of money upon mining villages in building schools and constructing roads. Something should be done for them. There is nothing in the Bill to safeguard local authorities. If mines are closed and men are thrown out of work, and the rateable value of the district is reduced, there will be no social amenities but an alarming increase in public assistance. They will have less money because the rateable value will have fallen unless they increase the rates.
We are told that the existence of crushing rates prevents industries from going into the Special Areas. I would not mind if all the mines were closed but one. If one mine in this country could provide all the coal we need, and so long as the miners and the local authorities were safeguarded, I would not mind if all the other collieries were closed. I cannot imagine that there would be many people who would want to rush into that way of getting a living. There is nothing in the Bill, practically speaking, which will be of immediate benefit to the miners. I wish that more could have been put into it. It is a comprehensive Bill, but the man with the pick who makes the money for the mine-owner is sadly neglected in it.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Whatever may have been my enthusiasm to deliver a great oration on this Measure when the Second


Reading was about to take place, it certainly has evaporated long before the later stages of the Third Reading. If I could say, "How do you do?" to the right hon. Gentleman, and then leave the right hon. Gentleman to reply, I should feel satisfied. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that we had had 15 days' debate on this Bill, and we were now reaching the final stage. I think that everything that could be said had been said 17 times before we reached the fifteenth day. But I am not sure that had there to be a Division to-night the Debate would not have gone on until 11 o'clock. Someone would have found something original, even at five minutes to 11 o'clock, to say upon this particular subject, which seems to go on like Tennyson's brook—there is no stopping it. The right hon. Gentleman, however, can console himself that there has been one solitary Member of this House who has opposed the Measure, hard and heavy, from every standpoint. Unfortunately for him the hon. Gentleman could not get the Members of his own party to divide, or, I think, the last stalwart of mid-Victorian Liberalism would have gone into the Lobby even against this Measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said that the real test of the usefulness or otherwise of the Bill is based upon whether it will improve technical efficiency and planning, reduce costs of production, improve the wages of the workpeople and secure an adequate supply of coal at reasonable prices. If the answer to these questions is in the affirmative, the Bill cannot fail to be useful. I agree with many hon. Members that there appears to be no sign of any immediate benefit to the mining community, but I am still of the opinion that the three major items in the Bill—royalties, amalgamations and selling schemes—must, of necessity, confer some benefit on the industry. What part the miner may ultimately get out of these benefits remains to be seen. He can never hope to get too much because of the ingenious wage schemes which were imposed in 1926, and before the unfortunate miner can get one penny extra he will be charged by consumers with being wholly responsible for any excessive prices they may be called upon to pay.
In dealing with the question of royalties the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) said we were buying the royalties too cheaply; it was tantamount to confiscation. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) said we were giving far too much. Whether we are paying too much or confiscating royalties, I am convinced from what I know of the royalty owners in this country that we are paying much more than most of the royalty owners deserve. Whether or not technical planning will be easier as a result of this unification policy I cannot quite see, but to me it seems absurd that having fixed the figure of £66,500,000 we should then continue for another four and a half years paying an annual sum to royalty owners, up to the day of vesting. On the basis of the present output we shall be paying £5,500,000 instead of £2,500,000, as would have been the case if the bargain had been settled on the day when the Commission takes charge. I have been advocating the nationalisation of royalties for some time and this much belated step on the part of the Government is quite contrary to all their political predilections. I am satisfied that sheer necessity has driven them to take this step, but having taken the step of nationalising royalties it is only a very short distance to the nationalisation of land as well, a step which they will ultimately have to take.
The policy of amalgamation has been opposed by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) whether it is voluntary or compulsory, and the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) views it from a similar standpoint, largely because of the social consequences which have occurred in the past. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said that he had turned down all the amalgamation schemes he had examined; he could not see any good in amalgamation. I can only say that his views on amalgamation are different from those of his brother, who is a director of an amalgamation scheme in which three collieries in my division are concerned, and which is regarded as having proved very useful to the collieries. It is true that there have been no evil social consequences as has been the case in other areas, and I have heard no complaints from the mine workers, the local authorities, or the


directors of the various companies involved in the amalgamation.

Mr. Peake: My remarks were in reply to what was said by the Secretary for Mines, who said that I had been concerned in amalgamations since 1930. That particular remark was not true. Of course there are good amalgamations, and I have been concerned in some of them, but the burden of my remarks was that amalgamation per se was not necessarily a good thing.

Mr. Williams: I entirely agree with the hon. Member but he did say that he could not recall a single successful amalgamation, whereas in my division his brother has taken an important part in a successful amalgamation. But I agree that amalgamation can be of real value without in any way putting a single colliery out of production, because it can be of real value for the purpose of joint buying and joint selling, and for a multiple of other reasons. Such an amalgamation can be made a real success without adversely affecting the mine workers, their families and local authorities. To the extent that any amalgamation scheme can be successful from the point of view of pure organisation, without leaving a trail of evil social consequences, hon. Members on these benches would agree with amalgamation.
The selling schemes have been referred to by the hon. Member for Newport (Sir R. Clarry), the hon. Member for South Bradford and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). They referred to the increase in the price of coal since the selling schemes first came into existence. It was the hon. Member for Newport who, on Second Reading, first entered a protest against the possibility of mine-owners exploiting the coal consumers in this country, and he urged the necessity for taking immediate steps for the provision of safeguards for the domestic and industrial consumer. It is true that since 1932 there has been a slight increase in the price of coal. During last year the prices may have increased by 1s., 2s. or 3s. per ton, but the hon. Member for Newport ought to be the last Member to complain of the increased price of coal to consumers. I have a cutting from the "Financial Times" of 10th March this year, in which the affairs of the Newport Gas Company are referred to in this way:
The annual report of the Newport (Monmouthshire) Gas Company shows that the

average cost of coal and oil was 22s. 11d. per ton compared with 19s. 8d. in 1936. The company's coke output was disposed of at an average price per ton of 34s. 7d. against 25s. 5d. in 1936.
Therefore, while the hon. Member's company pays 3s. 3d. extra for every ton of coal that it buys, it charges 9s. 2d. for every ton of coke that it sells. If he urges upon the President of the Board of Trade to provide adequate safeguards for consumers of coal, what safeguards ought the consumers of coke to have against the hon. Member?

Sir R. Clarry: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to misrepresent me. It is not my colliery. I was speaking for consumers as a whole, and not for one particular industry. I have taken great care to safeguard that position. If you ask me the question, whatever safeguards are taken to prevent exploiting consumers of coal, I am certainly in favour of the same safeguards against exploiting the consumers of coke.

Mr. Williams: I do not doubt the hon. Member's desire to safeguard coke consumers, but, as far as my recollection goes, I do not remember his having invited the President of the Board of Trade to provide those safeguards for coke consumers.

Sir R. Clarry: It is not necessary.

Mr. Williams: If no safeguards are necessary for consumers of coke who have been charged 9s. 3d. a ton extra in 1937 over 1936, surely no safeguards are necessary for consumers of coal, who have paid only 3s. 3d. more. Then, again, I want to give one or two figures to those who are afraid that they are out to be exploited as a result of the selling schemes. What are the facts with regard to 1929—that is, the year before selling schemes first came into existence—and the last year for which figures are available, namely, 1937? Commercial proceeds for disposable coal in 1929 were 14s. 4d. per ton, and in 1937 the price was 15s. 10½. The net increase in the average price for all coal sold in the British Islands was 1s. 7½d. a ton—not the colossal increase that some hon. Members have tried to make out. Whether the increase has gone in profits or in wages, there is certainly not a colossal sum there.
It is true, of course, that profits have increased over the period. The hon. Member for North Leeds can tell us more about profits than he cares to tell us about wages. Despite the increase of 1s. 7d. a ton, the profits in Durham for the year were only about 6 £. per ton. So if the 3s. 3d. per ton paid by the hon. Member's gas company had not been charged, and all their coal had been purchased from Durham, they would have lost 2s, 9d. on every ton of coal produced in that county. It is true that in North Derby and Nottingham they made 1s. 11d. per ton profit. That may be an excessive profit, but it is certainly not the profit that some hon. Members would have us believe. The prices are obtainable in the Vote Office for the whole of the year 1937, the average price for the United Kingdom being 15s. 10 £d. a ton. Having spent some little time down and around coal mines, in my view that price is by no means a large one compared with the energy, and the effort and the danger that the miner has to run. My complaint is that the miner gets far too little of it. But whether he gets too small or too large a share makes little or no difference. When seeking from the President of the Board of Trade more safeguards for consumers of industrial coal, the hon. Member for Newport ought to have a wee bit more consideration for those who produce it than has characterised his speeches.
My complaint about the selling schemes is that they are not marketing schemes. In other words, like so many of the agricultural so-called marketing schemes, they are purely price-fixing schemes, and not marketing schemes at all. In a successful marketing scheme obviously all unnecessary middlemen ought to be completely eliminated, so that the producer of the commodity and the consumer jointly should benefit. If the right hon. Gentleman has any power, after the result of the promised inquiry is known, to insist upon marketing schemes instead of price-fixing schemes, that will be an additional improvement of the Bill. The Bill itself is a departure from general Conservative principles. In 1922 the general cry was, "Hands off industry." The sanctity of private property, private enterprise and competition were the political law and life of the average Conservative Member. The mere fact that you have been driven to nationalise one of them

and to insist upon amalgamation where it is felt that amalgamation will add to the efficiency of the industry and being compelled to give to the coalowners power to eliminate competition in the selling of the products, is an absolute violation of all Conservative principles as I understood them when I first came into the House. However, I think in all three cases it is not only an indication of the way this House has to go, but it is a lesson that we on these benches will not readily forget. We are happy to know that events are driving the Government in this direction, and that they are setting us a very good example, and we hope we may be able to follow it.

9.33 P.m.

Mr. Stanley: My hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines started the Debate by saying that after 15 days' discussion of the Bill there is nothing more to say. That statement is six hours truer than when he made it. There is, however, one thing that I can say and that he could not, and that is something about my hon. Friend himself. Everyone who has sat through those 15 days of debate on the Bill will, I know, join with me in a tribute to the knowledge, the assiduity and the urbanity that he has displayed, and that tribute will be joined in, I think, most heartily by those to whom his views have been most displeasing and his arguments least convincing. It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), a privilege which I have enjoyed several times during the last few months, for we were both engaged in even more lengthly discussions upon films. I admire the hon. Gentleman's easy transition from one subject to the other. The way in which he has passed from the glamour of the studio to the grimness of the mine has increased my belief that he is the real handyman of the party opposite.
I intend to follow the example set by other hon. Members and to say a few words about the three Parts into which the Bill is divided; and if the House will permit me a little eccentricity, I will deal with those three Parts in the order in which they appear in the Bill. First of all, let me say that I entirely disagree with the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) that this ought to be the subject-matter not of one Bill, but of three Bills. Heaven forbid that there


should have been three Bills. Apart from that, however, there is running through the three Parts a connecting thread, and any hon. Member who has listened to the 15 days of debate on the Bill will realise how often discussions on Amendments to one Part of the Bill have involved discussions of other Parts. More particularly is that true of Part II and Part III of the Bill. Part III confers upon the mineowners a very distinct privilege, and Part II, in return, deals with certain obligations which they bear.
Dealing with Part I of the Bill, which concerns the unification of royalties, I hope that no hon. Member on this side of the House will be so simple as to be taken in by the concluding words of the hon. Member for Don Valley, who tried to convince us that in this Part of the Bill there is some new and vital departure from Conservative principles which will justify some far-distant Socialist majority in doing something which they would never be able to do unless they were able to point to some respectable Conservative precedent for doing it. I confess that it fills me with a very comfortable sense of security when I know that no Socialist Government, however big its majority, will do anything, when it is in power, which it cannot find a Conservative precedent for doing.
But it is absurd to say that the principle underlying the purchase of these royalties by the State is some great and new departure. There is a precedent, stretching back for years, that there are certain circumstances in which the rights of property must give way to the national interest. When the hon. Member for Don Valley, on Sunday, gets into his favorite car to go to his favorite seaside resort, he will travel over roads that have been built because the State has had these powers of putting national interests above the rights of property. Every time one goes to a municipal housing estate or sees a slum clearance scheme, one sees that principle in operation. It seems to me that the two vital points connected with this principle are, first, that if the State acquires private property against the will of the owner of that property, it must acquire it only because its acquisition is really in the national interest; and secondly, that if the State acquires the property, the owner of it has to receive fair and just treatment in the compensa-

tion which he gets. The first question we have to ask ourselves with regard to the acquisition of mining royalties is whether it is really in the national interest. I am discomfited when I hear hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Spennymoor, and other hon. Members representing Durham and Northumberland constituencies, who are not present at the moment, say that there is in this nothing for the miners.
The unification of royalties is a thing which hon. Members opposite have preached for years, and preached not only on financial grounds. I have read their pamphlets and their propaganda. They have not merely said that they wanted to nationalise royalties without compensation because it meant putting more money into the pockets of the miners; they have said they wanted to unify royalties because it would lead to a better organisation of the industry, and that in the better organisation of the industry the worker would have a chance of a better future for himself. That is the first of the grounds on which I base the action of the Government in acquiring these royalties in the national interest; it means the improved organisation of the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who is not a theorist but a practical coalowner, condemned the existing system of private ownership of royalties because, he said, it has become an obstacle to the most modern mining methods. The second ground, whatever may be the hon. Member's financial ideas—and I think they were not stated very accurately—is that there is a hope in the provisions of this Bill, a hope which will increase with the passage of years——

Mr. G. Griffiths: In the sweet by and by.

Mr. Stanley: Clearly it must depend upon the rate at which the Government can borrow money and upon the future of the coal industry, and therefore the amount of royalties which the Government receive; but I say that there are in this Bill possibilities of a surplus accumulating which can be used for the purposes set out in the Bill, the reduction of royalties, and that, by redounding to the greater financial stability and profit of the industry, will inevitably give better chances for the miners.

Mr. Batey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate of the income and expenditure of the Coal Commission?

Mr. Stanley: Clearly, I cannot give an estimate for future years. Who can? Who can give an estimate over the next few years of the rate at which the Government can borrow? Who can estimate over the next 10 years the amount of coal that will be raised and the amount of income which the Commission will enjoy? What any hon. Member can do for himself is to work out, on the basis of the rate at which the Government can raise money at the present time and the income which the Commission will enjoy at the present time, the prospects of there being a surplus which can be devoted to the purposes of this Bill.

Mr. Batey: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will be the total cost to the Commission of litigation and similar things?

Mr. Stanley: In the Bill there is a definite upper limit to the amount of borrowing which the Commission may do. Even if the hon. Member takes an upper limit, which does not necessarily represent the actual sum which the Commission w ill have to take, and work it out on that basis, he will be able to see for himself what will be the available surplus for the purposes in the Bill. I claim that there does lie, in the possession by a single hand, under Government direction, of all the royalties of the country, a great safeguard for the future development of the coal industry under the kind of conditions which we are likely to meet in this century. It is a point that I have made before. The difference between the coal industry in the twentieth and the nineteenth centuries revealed by the enormously increased injury which is done to-day if a new coalfield is opened when old coalfields are still unexhausted. The enormous, regular and rapid increase of consumption in the nineteenth century was such that the slack was automatically taken up, but we cannot look forward to that condition now. Therefore, I regard as among the most important results of this unification of royalties the possibility of the Commission providing for orderly developments of that kind. The hon. Member for the Don Valley said: "What a splendid precedent this will be, when we come in, for the unification of agricultural land."

Mr. T. Williams: Hear, hear !

Mr. Stanley: Let me point out the difference to the hon. Member. I base my advocacy of the action of the Government under Part I on the reason that the acquisition of these royalties is in the national interest. I do not believe that the same conditions in any way apply to the acquisition of agricultural land. It may be said that I happen to be a landowner and not a royalty owner and that, therefore, I take too favourable a view of one set of individuals and too unfavourable a view of another set; but I should be perfectly prepared to contend before any audience, on any platform, that there is a very great difference between the functions which have been performed and which are being performed to-day by the agricultural landlord, and the functions which have been performed by the owner of the mineral rights. The agricultural landowner has been and is a real partner in the agricultural industry. That everyone knows.

Mr. T. Williams: He was.

Mr. Stanley: He is still; many of them still are and will remain so, unless the efforts of hon. Members opposite to reduce their ability to function are successful. There has been and there is a very great difference between the respective roles played by the agricultural landowner and the royalty owner. I should not for a moment agree that the acquisition of the coal rights formed any precedent or any argument for the acquisition of other property, held by quite different people, administered in quite different ways and under conditions which are so totally dissimilar.
A further point of difference on this question of royalties has been whether the people whose property we are acquiring have been fairly treated. It is only one more instance of what Lord Baldwin used to call, "the many-sidedness of truth." The same set of circumstances is described by the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) as tantamount to confiscation, and by the hon. Member for Spennymoor as robbery—robbery of the miners. The hon. Member for Spennymoor would go further and say that not only ought the royalty owners to have nothing, but that he has a counter-claim for a certain amount of damages. I contend that between those two very widely


opposing views, the methods which the Government have employed in arriving at the figure of compensation are fair and have led to an equitable result.
We must not forget the history of this matter. We must not forget that the figure was arrived at not by an arbitrary decision of the Government but by the decision of a tribunal to which the royalty owners agreed and the terms of reference of which were drawn up between them and the Government. It was a tribunal composed of the most eminent people, whose impartiality and knowledge no one could criticise. I cannot agree that methods of that kind are unfair when it comes to compensation for property taken over by the State. The number of years' purchase which the tribunal decided upon was 15. They took into account, no doubt, in deciding on the 15 years, the fact to which the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) referred, namely, that it was an exchange of an industrial risk for a gilt-edged security. It may very well be that that period of 15 years is not the period of purchase that the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed thinks that the royalty owners ought to have got; but he admitted that in many cases in the past, when there has been a question of royalties being valued for the purpose of Death Duties, the number of years' purchase that has been included in the probate has not been then, as he admitted, a question of the 20 years, for which the royalty owners asked, or the 15. years which has been awarded to them, but it has been a question of nine or 10 years. I believe that in arriving at this sum the Government have adopted methods which were eminently fair and which leave no case for complaint on the ground of injustice to those who are to receive the compensation.
Now I pass to Part II of the Bill, the question of compulsory amalgamations. As always is the case in anything of this kind, the opinions stated on both sides are so extreme that they are easy to refute. It has always seemed to me that the real answer lies in the middle of those extreme views. I remember a time, six or seven years ago, when I did not know very much about coal, when coal was being very much debated in this House and when claims were made which I thought to be absurd on behalf of com-

pulsory amalgamations. I think they were mostly made by the party to which the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) belongs. Compulsory amalgamations, we were told, would solve all the problems of the industry. You had only to have sufficient of them—the blessed word then was integration—and everything would be all right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Coal and power."] Yes, "Coal and Power." There were a great many opponents of compulsory amalgamations who took a totally different view. It is said: "It is all very well to say that we have had amalgamations in our district, but there are a great number of closed pits."
We have to look into the matter rather closer than that and see whether those closed pits are post hoc or propter hoc, whether the closing of those pits would have been avoided if there had been no amalgamations, or whether in many cases if there had been no amalgamations pits which to-day are working might have joined that mournful catalogue of closed pits to which so many hon. Members have referred. Does any hon. Member here believe that if, say, at the end of the War, when the period of expansion came to an end, an Act had been passed which prevented any amalgamations, voluntary or compulsory, there would not have been closed pits under the circumstances of the last 15 years? Does any hon. Member think that the reduction of demand, coupled with the increased rapidity of production, would not have led inevitably to the closure of pits, amalgamations or no amalgamations?
I think we have, therefore, to be very careful not to condemn amalgamations merely because, in some districts where they have taken place, pits which I believe anyhow would have closed, have been closed down. The hon. Member for Don Valley himself gave a very good instance of a point that I particularly want to make, that we must not think that amalgamation is necessarily synonymous with the closing of pits. That is a point that I made on the Second Reading, that there may be reasons connected with the efficiency of an undertaking which, apart from the closing down of pits, would justify amalgamation, and the hon. Gentleman has referred to a successful amalgamation in his own constituency which has not resulted in any closing down of pits. I believe that there are cases where amal-


gamation is a useful, and I would go even further and say a vital, contribution to the organisation of the industry. Frankly, I differ from the hon. Member for Berwick. I would like to see these amalgamations voluntary amalgamations, because if they are voluntary, they start in a better atmosphere and with better prospects for development in future years. I must say that I was a little amused with one passage of his speech, when he told an astonished House and an astounded party that he was not in favour of voluntary amalgamations. It came as a surprise when he had started by informing the House that he had already done all the voluntary amalgamations that he wanted to do.
I believe that these compulsory amalgamations, if voluntary amalgamations cannot be got, should go through only with proper safeguards and proper inspection. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to complain about the provisions of this Bill and about this Provisional Order procedure. As a matter of fact, of those who have been engaged in the mining industry, mining Members, there is not one of them who, whatever political capital he may try to make, in his heart of hearts is not glad that there is to be this opportunity, where the local authority or the local Miners' Federation will be able to state to Members of Parliament direct what in their view might be the effects of these amalgamations. When I am told, although hon. Members opposite asked for an inquiry, that the whole thing is spoiled because, instead of having some informal representation to the Commission, a representation with no publicity and no power, it has now been changed into representation to a Committee of this House, to the people who are actually going to take the decision, that the whole thing is altered because you have got to brief counsel, well, I have not such a poor opinion of a Select Committee of Members of this House as to think that they can only take in the points of a local authority or of people representing the miners if those points are made to them by well-paid people in wigs and gowns. I believe that a Select Committee of the House of. Commons, of our colleagues, chosen as they are from our ranks, are perfectly capable, without the intervention of

expensive counsel, to decide points of this kind.
Finally, if I may come to the question of Part III and the selling schemes, on this Part of the Bill our attitude has been made plain all along. In my speech upon the Second Reading I emphasised the importance which the Government attached to the continuation of these schemes. I reminded the House of the circumstances under which they had come into operation, and I tried to tell the House something of the consequences which would result from the failure to continue them; but at the same time, provided I was sure that these schemes continued, that there was no breach of faith, as I should have regarded it, with the miners of this country, and that their primary object of putting an end to the kind of competition which we saw in those wasteful years was secured, provided all those things obtained, I was prepared to accept any improvement in machinery or any extra safeguards for the consumer. I must say that I think my hon. and gallant Friend and I, during the course of this Bill, have done everything that is possible, while retaining those essentials of the selling schemes, to provide for the different classes of consumers what safeguards are possible.
There is, first of all, in the Bill itself improved machinery, both for the original investigation and for the subsequent appeal. There are, secondly, the assurances given by the mineowners, the greater part of which, as my hon. and gallant Friend explained the other day, are to be incorporated in the schemes and, therefore, will have a definite sanction behind them. Thirdly, there is the inquiry which has been promised, not into the pithead prices, not into the first price—that is a matter for the scheme—but into the spread between that price and the price which is paid by the ultimate consumer. It may interest hon. Members to know that that inquiry into the spread of prices will apply not only to coal, but to coke. I may say that no one asked me to include coke, but I thought that it was a good thing to include it.
But I must say, in view of many of the things which have been said, both in the Press and during the Debates in this House, that while I am anxious to provide every reasonable safeguard for consumers, I must defend myself against


dividing consumers into different sections. For instance, I find it very difficult to sympathise with the complaint made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for one of the Hull districts that a rich authority which had been paying the extravagant sum of, I think, 3s. 11d. a ton for coal should have had that sum increased. I feel it a little difficult to take very seriously the complaints of a gentleman, however eminent, about the increase in the price of coal when I happen to know that he is engaged in very remunerative industries which for many years have exercised, by agreement among themselves, exactly the same kind of thing that is to be done now under the statutory authority of this Bill. As regards the question of the domestic consumer, for whom I have every sympathy, I feel that in time, whatever it may be possible to do as a result of this provision, it will have one good consequence. At any rate, we shall know what is the explanation of the spread in prices and it will no longer be a matter of argument and debate and of putting the blame on this or that cause.
Two points have been made by hon. Members opposite on the selling schemes, to which I attach great importance and on which I know my hon. and gallant Friend is going to keep a watchful eye. I agree that these selling schemes have never yet been tested. Indeed, I doubt if they have yet really operated. I believe that in many cases the increase in the cost of coal which consumers have had to pay, might well have been greater, if there had been no selling schemes. But their testing time is coming, not under the boom conditions of the last year, but when the tide turns, and we shall certainly watch very carefully how they stand up to the conditions in a period of that kind. It is not that we want to keep, or that anybody wants to keep, or that anybody thinks you can keep one commodity like coal out of relationship with all the other commodities of life. But what it is possible for the ingenuity of man to devise, is that any natural fall which is taking place in commodities in general, shall not be accentuated in the case of this one commodity by the almost suicidal inter-pit competition which resulted in the coal being almost given away.
There is another point in regard to the selling schemes and it relates to the export

side. We are moving into a very different world from the world of 20 or 30 years ago. We are moving into a world in which almost every country with whom we compete, is competing as a nation. The industry with which you are competing is an industry with the backing of a nation behind it. It is very difficult for one pit, or one company, to stand up against a country and it seems to me that it is perhaps in the beginning of these selling schemes, in the beginning of more co-operation in selling, in the first ability of the industry to speak as one, in the matter of the marketing of coal, that there lies our best chance of dealing with this new and terribly dangerous kind of competition which is facing us not only in coal, but in other industries, namely, the competition of countries and not of companies.
I have been conscious that, apart from the question of this Bill or particular provisions in it, or even of the coal industry, there has been going on throughout the passage of the Bill a contest of ideals. It is a contest which is the real problem of the age and it goes far beyond the problems of a particular industry or a particular Bill. The hon. Member for South Bradford is a typical exponent of one school of thought—he and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams). They formed a voluntary amalgamation. I only hope that they will be able to prove that it is in the national interest and that it is fair and equitable to both parties. They dislike all parts of this Bill. They dislike all Bills of this kind. So do I. As it happens, about 50 years ago my grandfather occupied the position which I now occupy, as President of the Board of Trade, and I sometimes think what a splendid time he must have had. He had no Films Bill, he had no Coal Bill, he had no trade treaties, he had no clearing agreements.

Mr. Holdsworth: He had Free Trade.

Mr. Stanley: But the change between then and now is not a change of persons. It is not that I want to interfere and that he did not. It is not even a change of policies and principles. It is a change of facts. In those 50 years the whole economic facts of this country and the world have changed, and with that change we have to change the way in which we deal with those facts. I would like—nobody would like better than I—


to go back, if we could, to the economics of the nineteenth century. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, I believe that from the point of view of economics, that was, perhaps, the happiest time that this country has ever known. The mistakes that were made, and I agree that mistakes were made, were social and political, but in the nineteenth century you had a prosperous and flourishing industry, an expanding industry, and Parliament had for its social legislation, at any rate, a background of prosperity and wealth.

Mr. E. Smith: Ten hours a day and twenty-five bob a week.

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps hon. Gentlemen would listen to my argument. I was saying that the economic conditions were as I have described. It is true that owing to failure of legislation, owing to the absence of the collective system which we have now got, the full social advantages were not taken of those conditions. But who would not like to go back to them? Would hon. Members opposite say that they would not like to go back to those conditions, with the union machinery which they have now got and the kind of profitability of industry which existed in the nineteenth century and, under those conditions, try to get the wages and conditions which they desire for their people? Would they not have a much better chance under those conditions than they have to-day? But whether we would like to go back or not there is no good talking about it. The economics of the nineteenth century were based on the facts of the nineteenth century and now that those facts have gone the economics have gone also. It was a time of rapidly expanding markets. You had a concatenation of favourable circumstances. You had the freedom of the Continent from war. You had discoveries of large new potentialities of production. You had a rapid and continuous increase in population during the whole of that century. You had not to plan or to organise. If you opened a new coalfield before it was needed, in a year or two there were enough new contracts, either in this country or oversea, to take all the coal you could produce. If you opened a new boot factory when other boot factories were under-employed, it did not matter. In a few years there were enough extra feet to demand all those boots and many more. Those conditions have gone.

I do not think that any of us yet quite realise how much the shadow of a stationary and eventually declining population lies across the whole of the economics of the world to-day. That is my justification for legislation of this kind. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, I know, would solve it in a different way.

Mr. Gallacher: In a real way.

Mr. Stanley: They would solve it by Socialism. I should not be allowed tonight to discuss the whole question of Socialism. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) made an attack upon me in the Second Reading Debate. I am sorry not to see him here to-night. It is the result, we know, of an illness through a hunting accident. If I may presume to offer some advice to him it would be that in future he should stick to hunting Ministers instead of foxes. He would find it much less arduous and much safer. He accused me of being a Socialist under the cover of a Conservative. I do not know whether to call that a sheep in wolf's clothing or a wolf in sheep's clothing, but I am as much an anti-Socialist as he is. [Interruption.] I must apologise to hon. Members. There were two interjections which I am sure were apposite or humorous, but I could not understand either of them.

Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. Gentleman's grandfather spoke from that Box. The right hon. Gentleman has changed very much from his grandfather and the right hon. Gentleman's grandson will change as much as he has done.

Mr. Stanley: For all I know "he" may be a woman.

Mr. Batey: Then it will, indeed, be a change.

Mr. Stanley: I am just as much against Socialism as is the hon. Member for Aylesbury or any hon. Member on this side, but there is this difference. I take Socialism seriously. I do not think the way to deal with Socialism or the way to analyse or to fight it is simply to lump together all the things you do not happen to like and call them Socialism. I try to see what Socialism means to a Socialist. To-night I could not go through the reasons why I reject that solution. I regard the chief enemy of Socialism as being the inventor—the man who is


always keeping industry dynamic while Socialism is the structure of a static industry. [Interruption.] I am ready to tell hon. Gentlemen why. One reason, at any rate, is this. I am never able to convince myself that a Socialist industry with bureaucratic control can ever stand up to the real test which comes to private industry, and which private industry has to stand up to if it is not to go under. That is the test of the new invention, the new machine, the new development which suddenly renders antiquated, out of date and useless all the expenditure which has been put into industry.

Mr. T. Smith: We will have a Debate on that some time.

Mr. Tinker: On a point of Order. It is hardly fair that the right hon. Gentleman should be allowed to advocate what he thinks about Socialism if we do not have any chance of replying.

Mr. Speaker: I am not at all sure that the whole thing is not out of order, but hon. Members seem to be enjoying themselves.

Mr. Stanley: I apologise if I have been led away. I said that I was not going to give my reasons for opposing Socialism, but when hon. Members challenge me with being unable to give them I am afraid that I was unable to withstand the temptation to reply.

Mr. Mathers: Mr. Mathers rose——

Mr. Stanley: I cannot give way any more. I do believe that between

those two contending extremes—between an economic theory which, however appropriate it was to the conditions of a century ago, is inappropriate to the tests of to-day, and an economic theory which, I believe, can result only in a stabilisation of industry, and can be successful only in a world without scientific and industrial advance—lies the course of industry in this country, and that is the justification for this kind of Bill. That is the justification for what some hon. Members sometimes call interference with industry, but they are the last people who would in fact tolerate that under conditions as they are to-day the Government should not seek in one way or another—whether by tariffs or subsidies or measures of this kind—to interfere, because interference means under present conditions the salvation of industry from the new facts of a new world.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Hope.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes after Ten o'Clock.